/ 

Q. 

•5r 

w 

^ 

In 

"* 

0> 

*^ 

IE 

&        *"» 

Q_ 

#W 

*S*>          & 

o 

^ 

£ 

*            £ 

(D 

C 

w          O 

&0 

cC 

»25            Eh 

ts      g 

3 

to 

E 

55 

*»               H 

cu 

SZ 

•S              « 

to 

% 

% 

a> 

c 

3 

% 

a> 
£ 

*S> 

CL 

1 

SCR 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/pastorsgifttohisOOwarr 


A  PASTOR'S  GIFT  TO  HIS  PEOPLE, 


TREATISE 

ON 


HOUSEHOLD  CONSECEATION 


—AND— 


BAPTISM. 


BY  WILLIAM  £  WARREN, 

PASTOR  OF   THE   CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH,  WINDHAM, 


PORTLAND : 
HYDE,   LORD    &   DUREN 
1846. 


THURSTO.V,  FOSTER  &  CO., 
Printers  and  Stzreotvpers,  Portland. 


<N 


TO  THE  C^     <£ 

CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH  IN  WINDHAM. 


For  more  than  six  years  I  have  labored  with  you  in 
the  Lord.  I  have  gathered  from  this  people  but  a 
small  "  harvest  of  souls."  I  have  feared,  that  next  to 
my  own  unfaithfulness,  the  reason  might  be  found  in 
your  families;  —  in  a  neglect  to  consecrate  them  to 
God,  and  train  them  up  for  his  service.  An  omission 
here,  must  tend  to  hinder  all  efforts  to  build  up  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  That  kingdom  is  a  covenanted 
kingdom.  Its  line  of  blessings  from  the  first  to  its 
fulfilment,  branches  out  principally  through  the  off 
spring  of  the  Church.  It  was  under  such  impressions 
that  1  wrote  the  following  treatise.  I  now  affection- 
ately dedicate  it  to  you  and  your  families.  Whether  I 
shall  remain  with  you  or  not,  I  want  you  to  have  in 
your  houses,  a  memorial  of  my  views  and  feelings  upon 
this  vast  subject.  Receive  this  little  work,  as  a 
token  of  my  interest  in  you  and  your  children,  and  the 
church  to  which  you  belong. 

Your  Affectionate  Pastor, 

W.  W. 


TREATISE 


THE    VALUE    OP    RELIGIOUS    ORDINANCES. 

The  greatest  of  human  reasoners  and  divines, 
asks,  "  what  advantage  hath  the  Jew,  and  what 
profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  "  He  takes  the 
ground  of  an  objector,  and  calls  in  question  the 
validity  or  expediency  of  Jewish  rites.  He  does 
not,  however,  like  sceptical  objectors,  leave  the 
questions  which  he  raises,  in  the  dark.  He  oners 
objections  in  order  to  answer  them.  He  pro- 
poses difficulties  only  to  settle  them.  He  acts 
the  part  of  the  christian  philosopher,  and  relieves 
entangled  questions  of  their  difficulty.  It  is 
easier  always  to  ask  questions  than  to  answer 
them  —  to  propound  difficulties  than  to  solve 
them.  And  he  who  does  both  at  a  stroke,  and 
in  the  spirit  of  truth  and  love,  is  entitled  to  our 
gratitude. 

The  word  circumcision,  as  here  used,  may  be 

regarded  as  a  general  term,  representing  what, 

ever  was  valuable  and  permanent  in  the  Jewish 

system.     In  this  sense,  it  includes  the  leading 

1* 


A    PASTOR'S   gift 


principles  and  features  of  the  ancient  economy. 
It  may  however,  have  reference  to  the  particular 
rite  of  circumcision,  as  such  ;  but  if  so,  it  stands 
only  as  an  exponent  of  whatever  was  essential 
and  permanent  in  the  ancient  dispensation.  It 
is  a  word  that  calls  up  a  train  of  hallowed  asso- 
ciations, and  stands  for  whatever  was  to  be 
regarded  as  excellent  in  the  antecedent  system. 
Religious  ordinances  have  an  essential  place 
in  the  visible  church.  Though  usually  simple 
in  their  form,  and  not  unfrequently  trivial  and 
useless  in  appearance,  still  they  stand  as  repre- 
sentatives of  important  principles.  They  are 
the  shadowing  forth  of  essential  truth.  They 
are  integral  in  the  moral  system.  They  are  the 
indexes  —  or  the  envelopes  of  immutable  truth. 
They  illustrate  it;  they  perpetuate  the  knowl- 
edge of  it.  Nay,  it  were  unsafe  to  commit  per- 
manent truths  to  abstract  language.  For  its 
terms  and  its  meaning  are  constantly  fluctuating 
and  passing  in  disuse.  And  God  took  care  to 
provide,  as  an  investment  and  depository  of  the 
immutable  truths  of  religion,  a  language  that 
would  not  change.  He  selected  the  language 
of  things,  rather  than  that  of  words;  a  language 
always  definite,  significant,  transparent.  He 
enshrined  the  great  truths  of  his  religion,  in 
the  unambiguous  dialect  of  symbols,  as   a  safe 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  4 

and  appropriate  medium  to  convey  them  to  the 
latest  times. 

Again.  Rites  indicate  the  resemblances  be- 
tween the  great  truths  that  characterise  the  two 
dispensations.  There  was  a  system  of  ordinan- 
ces, running  through  the  old  dispensation,  that 
was  linked,  at  the  christian  era,  with  a  corres- 
ponding system  running  through  the  new  dis- 
pensation. These  different  chains,  uniting  in 
the  cross,  and  corresponding  in  the  different 
dispensations,  indicate  the  great  points  of  har- 
mony in  those  dispensations,  Each  chain  in 
the  old,  standing  for  some  great  truth,  runs  on 
through  the  cross,  into  the  new  dispensation, 
and  there,  varying  only  in  its  form  and  lustre 
stands  for  the  same  great  truth,  as  seen  varied 
in  the  glory  of  the  gospel  system.  The  corres- 
pondences and  relations  of  the  great  truths  of 
religion,  as  they  stand  in  the  two  dispensations, 
are  shadowed  forth  by  the  corresponding  chains 
of  ordinances  that  characterise  these  dispensa- 
tions. The  ancient  sabbath,  sacrifices,  passover 
and  circumcision,  having  great  principles  as 
their  foundation,  passed  into  corresponding  in- 
stitutions, under  the  gospel  dispensation.  Each 
may  be  considered  as  a  chain  in  the  former  sys. 
tern,  linked  at  the  cross,  to  corresponding  chains 
in  the  new  system,     Upon  these  corresponding 


a  pastor's  gift 


chains,  in  the  different  dispensations,  were  sus_ 
pended  the  corresponding  truths   in  these  two 
dispensations.      These    analogous    ordinances, 
therefore,  illustrate  and  identify  the  correspond- 
ing truths  for   which  they  stand.      The  cross 
harmonizes  and  converts  these  chains.     It  does 
not  break  them.     And  we  expect   to  see  in  the 
type  of  the  substituted  rite,  every  feature  of  the 
principle  which  it  is  designed   to  hand   down 
from  the  one  to  the  other  of  these  dispensations^ 
We  expect  that  every   feature  essential   to  the 
principle  thus  to  be  preserved  and  perpetuated, 
will  be  delineated  and  illustrated  in  the  new  rite. 
Rites  are  also  valuable  as  tests  of  obedience* 
They  set  forth  duties  to  be  literally  done.    They 
are  embodied  in   acts  to  be  publicly  performed. 
And  thus  they  commit  men  to  certain  principles 
which  they  set  forth.      They   form   a   kind   of 
pledge,  that  binds  the  conscience,  and  tends  to 
confirm    religious  principles   and  habits.    Reli- 
gious ordinances  give  visibility  to  the  church  of 
God.     The  observance  of  rites  then,  is  the  visi- 
ble in  a  religious  system.     It  constitutes  an  open 
commitment  to  that   system.     These   rites   are 
something  specific  and  tangible.    They  are  points 
over  which  the  feelings  and  faith,  the   character 
and  destiny  are  often  developed.     Their  obser- 
vance then,  tends  to  give  visibility  and   unifor- 


TO   ins   PEOPLE.  9 

mity  to  the  church ;  to  give  definitiveness  and 
permanency  to  revealed  truth ;  and  to  in- 
dicate the  correspondences  in  the  two  great 
systems;  but  especially,  to  test  the  religious 
principles  and  purposes,  and  give  decision,  and 
permanency  to  the  christian  character.  They 
tend  to  commit  men  positively,  to  the  truth  and 
the  service  of  God. 

They  are  also  valuable  as  religious  helps* 
As  words  spoken  tend  to  strengthen  or  to  loosen 
the  inward  principles  in  man,  so  does  the  more 
powerful  language  of  symbols,  uttered  in  the 
performance  of  rites.  In  either  case,  there  is  a 
direct  influence  thrown  back  upon  the  heart, 
But  the  utterance  of  truth  as  acted  out,  sends  a 
far  stronger  reflex  influence  back  upon  the  heart, 
than  do  words  spoken  by  the  lips.  Our  acts,  if 
right,  help  our  feelings.  They  learn  us  to  "  live 
religion."  Rites  performed,  are  way-marks  that 
call  up  the  past.  They  are  monuments,  upon 
which  our  vows  are  recorded.  Their  review 
inspires  us  to  future  faithfulness.  They  are 
stern  reproofs  for  present  delinquency,  and  are 
adapted,  as  they  loom  up  in  the  past,  or  break 
upon  the  sluggishness  of  the  present,  to  give  us 
new  purposes  and  power  to  live  for  God  and 
abide  by  our  vows  to  him. 

There  is  a  twofold  danger   to   be    guarded 


10  a  pastor's  gift 

against  in  religion.  The  one  is,  that  of  making 
the  outward  and  the  visible  to  become  substi- 
tutes for  the  inward  and  essential.  The  other 
is,  that  of  treating  ordinances  and  sacraments 
with  contempt.  Either  extreme  is  dangerous, 
if  not  fatal  to  religion.  Let  the  ark  of  the  law 
or  the  gospel,  be  run  upon  the  shoals  of  bare 
rituals,  and  the  truth  of  God  and  the  interests 
of  his  kingdom  will  be  stranded.  Or  let 
that  ark  launch  out  into  the  deep  sea  of 
speculation  and  spiritualism,  without  the  helm 
and  chart  of  ordinances,  and  it  will  fail  of  the 
harbor  of  heaven. 

AN    OBJECTION    ANSWERED. 

It  is  said  that  rites  are  often  trivial  and  incon- 
gruous in  their  nature.  Some  have  denounced 
them  as  contemptible  and  disgusting.  But 
carry  this  objection  through  the  Bible  ;  and  see 
to  what  it  will  lead.  Go  laugh  at  the  blind  man 
anointing  his  eyes  with  clay.  Laugh  at  the  poor 
leper  washing  his  loathsome  body  in  the  stream. 
Go  laugh  at  the  lame  and  the  withered  waiting 
at  the  pool  of  Bethesda.  Were  not  the  things 
that  these  persons  were  commanded  to  do,  very 
trifling,  and  in  themselves,  inadequate  to  the 
ends  for  which  they  were  done?  But  they  were 
profitable.     It  was  good  for  these  afflicted  ones 


TO    HIS     FEOPLE.  11 

to  obey  God  literally  ;  to  do  just  as  he  had  told 
them  to  do,  nothing  doubting,  nothing  wavering 
nor  questioning. 

Formerly,  in  the  garden,   it  was  insinuated 
by  a  very  wise  one,  that  a  certain  prohibition, 
as  touching  a  very  trifling  thing,  was  strangely 
inconsistent  and  unworthy  of  God.     The  insin- 
uation took.     The  contemptible  prohibition  was 
broken   over.     An   enlightened,   liberal,  truth- 
seeking,  self-elevating  policy  annulled  the  singu- 
lar command.     But  the  act  done,  was  no  longer 
a  trifling  one.     The  interdict  ceased  to  be  in- 
significant then.     And  as  you  look  back  over 
time,  or   look   round  over  the  earth,  you  see 
nothing  but  the   dreadful   consequences.     It  is 
always  safe  to  obey  God  literally,  not  excepting 
that  which  is   seemingly   unnatural   and    incon- 
gruous.   God  often  chooses  the  most  unpromising 
means  to  accomplish  the  mightiest  ends.     Obe- 
dience is  better  than    sacrifice.     So  Abraham 
found   it.      God   told  him  to  offer  'up   his  son 
Isaac  —  his  only,  his  beloved  son  ;    the  son  of 
his  vows  and  of  the  promise ;   and  not  upon  the 
altar  of  circumcision,  or  of  baptism,  but  upon 
the  altar  of  sacrifice,  as  a  burnt  offering.     How 
would  that  strange  command  seem  to  dash  the 
hopes  of  the  patriarch  at  a  stroke.     And  how 
strong  a  plea  could  he   have  made  out  for   the 


IS  &  pastor's   gift 

life  of  his  son  ?  But  what  did  he  do?  He 
acquiesced.  He  obeyed  God  literally.  He 
journeyed  to  the  distant  mountain.  He  took 
with  him  the  heart-treasured  victim.  He  clave 
the  wood.  He  built  the  pile.  He  bound  upon 
it  the  sweet  boy;  and,  with  trembling  hand, 
•directs  the  blade  to  the  very  life  he  gave.  What 
a  scene  !  What  a  crisis  this  !  What  a  strife  in 
the  good  man's  feelings.  But  his  faith  was  equal 
to  the  crisis.  It  triumphed  over  feeling  or  fear. 
He  believed  that  God  could  raise  up  that  soul 
from  the  dead.  He  obeyed,  while  yet  he  paw 
not  the  reasons  nor  the  reasonableness  of  the 
command,  and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness. He  looked  beyond  the  bare  act.  He 
trusted.  And  how  profitable  was  that  trust  to 
Abraham  !  How  profitable  to  Israel !  Kow 
profitable  to  the  church!  How  profitable  to  the 
-world!  The  value  of  an  act  is  never  to  be 
measured  by  its  noticeable  qualities  or  results, 
but  by  the  value  of  what,  it  stands  associated 
•with,  and  the  power  of  God  to  accomplish  great 
ends  by  simple  means.  It  is  good  to  comply 
with  a  divine  direction,  however  insignificant  or 
trying  the  act;  when  we  can  see  no  reasons 
for  the  command,  its  inward  influences,  as  well 
as  outward  bearings,  are  far  better  than  when 
the  reasons  are  all  plain. 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  13 

Take  another  casein  the  history  of  Abraham. 
God  commanded  him,  without  precedent  or  ex- 
planation to  circumcise  his  seed.  And  this  was 
to  be  a  standing  ordinance  throughout  his  gen- 
erations. But  how  does  the  Patriarch  treat  this 
command?  His  argument  was  short.  "God 
commands."  Here  his  reasoning  ends.  He 
obeys  literally.  But  worldly  wisdom  would  have 
laughed  at  such  a  singular  ceremony.  But  the 
father  of  the  faithful  was  anxious  for  nothing 
but  to  perform  the  exact  thing  required.  Thou- 
sands of  years  passed  away  ;  the  Jewish  economy 
was  established  meanwhile  ;  prophets  wrote  and 
sung ;  finally  the  christian  dispensation  was 
ushered  in.  Flood  after  flood  of  light  rolled 
upon  the  church  and  world.  And  yet  we  hear 
the  chief  of  apostles  and  philosophers  declaring 
in  favor  of  this  simple  rite.  He  answers  his 
own  interrogation  as  to  its  utility,  by  pronoun- 
cing this  primitive  ordinance,  with  the  principles 
it  indicated,  profitable  every  day. 

THE    VALUE    OP    CIRCUMCISION,    AS    FAVORING 
THE    ARGUMENT    FOR    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

This  rite  was  the  seal  of  the  imperishable  cov- 
enant, the  representative  of  imperishable  prin- 
ciples; it  had  stood  the  ordeal  of  two  dispensa- 
tions.   Christ,  in  the  meanwhile,  had  come  and 


14  a  pastor's  gist 

abolished  the  shadowy — nailing  the  hand-writing 
of  ordinances  to  the  cross,  and  yet  the  great 
preacher  to  the  Gentiles  pronounces  in  favor  of 
this  simple  principle.  How  could  the  planter 
of  Christianity  among  the  Gentiles  endorse  this 
about  to  be  repudiated  rite,  if  its  principle  had 
become  worthless  1  How  could  the  chief  of 
apostles,  at  the  eve  of  the  overthrow  of  the 
Jewish  economy  and  commonwealth,  vouch  for 
this  ancient  custom,  if  both  its  principle  and  its 
seal  had  become  obsolete.  The  truth  is  th  is 
the  thing,  signified  was  essential  and  permanent, 
and  the  sign  or  seal, so  essential  to  its  perpetuity, 
was  still  to  be  continued,  under  a  new  type  or 
form!  Paul  would  not  have  spoken  thus  if  this 
whole  affair  was  to  wind  up  in  his  day.  If  this 
rite,  in  substance,  was  about  to  pass  away  and 
become  obsolete,  his  language  is  inconsistent 
and  contradictory.  No !  that  which  was  profit- 
able every  way,  could  not  be  suffered  to  pass 
away  without  a  substitute.  A  time-honored 
institution,  valuable  in  its  principle,  and  in  its 
seal,  could  not  be  allowed  to  pass  into  the 
common  grave  of  ancient  rites,  till  another 
kindred  one  had  come  to  succeed  it.  We  do 
not  believe  that  this  stereotyped  custom  could 
be  thrown  away  as  worn  out,  and  be  swept  into 
the  oblivion  of  the  past,  till  an  improved  form 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  15 

of  the  same  thing,  was  ready  to  take  its  place. 
These  remarks  may  help  to  prepare  the  way 
for  a  candid  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism.  I  think  it  can  be  safely  assumed,  that 
if  infant  circumcision  was  profitable  anciently, 
infant  baptism  is  now.  If  a  principle  ran 
through  the  ancient  economy  which  threw  a 
chain  of  responsibility  and  religious  influence 
around  families — a  principle  vital  to  that  econ- 
omy, and  approved  of  the  great  Apostle,  should 
we  not  expect  that  same  principle  would  be 
transferred  to  the  latter  dispensation  ?  Is  the 
presumption  absurd  ?  May  it  not  at  least  be 
allowed  to  off-sett  against  the  prejudice  and 
outcry  so  often  raised  against  infant  bap- 
tism? We  should  very  naturally  conclude,  that 
if  an  institution  was  in  vogue  at  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity,  which  was  valuable,  as  to 
its  sign,  and  the  thing  signified,  the  authors  of 
that  system  would  seize  upon  its  principle  and 
make  the  most  of  it ;  varying  the  seal,  perhaps 
the  better  to  suit  the  tenor  and  spirit  of  the 
gospel  scheme.  We  cannot  suppose  that  a 
principle  and  a  custom,  declared  by  the  Spirit 
to  be  profitable  every  way,  could  have  been 
laid  aside  at  a  period  when  every  help  to  the  truth 
of  God  was  never  so  much  needed. 

In  this  treatise,  the  bible  argument  will  follow 
a   series   of  preliminary  considerations,   which 


16  a  pastor's  gift. 

are  thought  to  have  a  powerful  bearing  upon  the 
subject.  These  I  trust  will  prepare  the  way  for 
the  more  perfect  force  of  the  Bible  proofs  in  fa- 
vor of  this  ordinance.  I  shall  present  my  thoughts 
on  this  subject  in  the  form  of  propositions. 

Piiop.  i.  Children  are  moral  beings,  and  as 
such  ought  to  be  jniblicly  consecrated  to  God- 
It  may  not  be  easy  to  prove  that  infant  chil- 
dren are  moral  agents,  but  I  think  no  one  will 
doubt  that  they  are  moral  beings.  A  person 
may  be  a  moral  being  who  is  not  at  the  same 
time,  a  moral  agent.  Who  ascribes  moral 
agency  to  the  insane  ?  Such  are  not  held  re- 
sponsible for  their  acts,  either  at  the  bar  of  pub- 
lic justice,  or  of  public  opinion.  They  are 
never  blamed  for  what  they  do,  for  they  are 
not  regarded  at  the  time,  as  moral  agents;  but, 
who  will  affirm  that  such  are  not  moral  beings? 
that  they  do  not  belong  to  the  family  of  God  1 

The  infant  child  is  a  moral  and  an  immortal 
beino*.  As  the  acorn  contains  all  the  elements 
of  the  oak  in  embryo,  so  the  infant  child  has  with- 
in itself  all  the  elements  of  the  perfect  man.  It 
is  a  scion  destined  to  bloom  and  ripen  in  eter- 
nity !  If  this  spark  of  immortal  existence 
should  cease  to  burn  here  the  moment  it  is 
kindled,  it  would  shine  in  an  instant  among  the 
sons  of  God.     The  infant  is  a  part  of  the  crea- 


G1PT    TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  17 

tion  of  God  that  was  formed  in  his  own  likeness. 
Now  it  cannot  be  questioned  that  a  conse- 
cration of  all  his  moral  subjects  is  God's  due. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  each  subject  of  his 
moral  government  should  be  publicly  presented 
and  dedicated  to  him.  It  was  so  anciently;  is  it 
not  so  now  ?  and  is  it  not  to  be  so  down  to  the  end? 
It  is  so,  or  it  is  not  so.  If  it  is  not  so,  then 
God  has  in  the  pale  of  his  moral  government, 
those  whose  public  consecration  and  presenta- 
tion to  himself,  he  does  not  claim,  nor  desire. 
But  this  no  one  will  dare  affirm.  Then  the 
converse  is  true ;  and  God  does  demand  and 
desire,  and  delight,  in  the  offering  and  visible 
consecration  of  all  his  moral  subjects  to  himself. 

Prop.  ii.  In  the  moral  kingdom  vows 
and  consecrations  have  their  appropriate 
seal  or  rite. 

A  covenant  is  always  a  sealed  instrument. 
Its  validity  rests  upon  its  seal.  Remove  the 
seal  and  its  force  is  gone.  It  is  so  in  the  relig- 
ious world.  The  seal  affixed  to  vows  and  cove- 
nants, gives  to  them  a  visible  form.  It  gives  to 
them  a  definite  signification.  It  gives  them  a 
literal  and  personal  application,  and  renders 
them  more  valid  and  permanent.  The  seal  is 
not  always  the  shaving  of  the  head,  or  the  of- 
erincr  of  a  sacrifice,  but  it  is  some  significant 


IS  a  pastor's  GirT 

act,  suitable  as  a  memorial  of  the  inward  men- 
tal transaction.  This  visible  act  serves  as  an 
external  counterpart  to  the  inward  and  invisi- 
ble one.  It  renders  it  more  literal,  more  sa- 
cred, more  binding.  It  is  a  published  pledge 
to  fulfil  our  vows,  and  act  up  to  the  spirit  and 
letter  of  our  consecration.  And  never,  while 
man  is  human,  will  he  rise  above  the  need  of 
motives,  drawn  from  the  external  world,  such  as 
appeal  to  his  senses  and  register  upon  exter- 
nal tablets  as  well  as  internal,  the  silent  vows 
and  transactions  of  the  heart.  If  I  were  to  go 
into  definite  proofs  of  this  proposition  I  should 
hardly  respect  the  intelligence  of  my  hearers  : 
for  the  fact  lies  upon  the  very  surface  of  the 
scriptures.  In  both  dispensations,  religious  vows 
and  transactions  have  had  their  visible  and  pub- 
lic seal. 

Prop.  hi.  Parents  assume  for  their 
infant  children  whatever  pertains  to  their 
physical,  mental  or  moral  welfare. 

At  least  they  are  bound  to  do  this.  Children 
are  identified  in  some  sense  with  their  parents. 
Their  early  responsibilities  are  by  no  means 
separate  from  theirs.  Parents  stand  in  the 
place  of  God  to  their  infant  offspring.  Their 
children  are  indeed  apart  of  themselves;  and 


to  ins  PEorLE.  19 

they  assume  for  them,  whatever  their  children 
will  assume  for  themselves  in  later  years. 
Their  responsibility  for  their  children  covers 
all  the  ground  of  their  children's  responsibility 
for  themselves,  in  after  life.  Physically,  they 
feed,  they  clothe,  they  train  them.  Mentally, 
they  think  for  them,  they  teach,  they  educate 
them.  Morally,  they  are  to  discipline  them  and 
direct  their  conduct,  and  train  them  up  in  the 
way  they  should  go.  In  all  these  respects  pa- 
rents are  to  do  for  their  children  what  the  chil- 
dren will  be  bound  to  do  for  themselves  in  af- 
ter life.  They  are  bound  to  do  for  their  chil- 
dren what  their  children  would  be  bound  to  do 
for  themselves  now,  if  they  were  capable  of  mor- 
al action.  But  what  would  the  child's  duty  now 
be,  if  it  were  a  moral  agent,  and  capable  of  un- 
derstanding its  duty?  Most  manifestly,  to  conse- 
crate its  powers  to  God,  and  take  upon  itself  the 
appropriate  seal  of  consecration  !  This  would 
be  the  immediate  duty  of  the  child  if  it  were  ca- 
pable of  moral  agency.  This,  none  can  doubt. 
But  infants  are  incapable  cf  doing  this ! 
Then  who  are  to  do  it  for  them  ?  From  whom 
is  this  consecration  now  due  ?  God  claims  the 
offering;  he  has  a  right  to  it,  and  to  a  public 
acknowledgment  of  it  as  his  own.  It  is  one  of 
his  moral  subjects.     It  is  a  member  of  his  own 


20  a  pastor's  gift 

family  ;  and  its  public  presentation  to  him  is  his 
right — his  due — his  desire — his  delight.  The 
act  then  is  binding  on  some  one.  But  on  whom 
does  this  responsibility  now  rest?  Answer,  on 
its  parents — its  moral  agents — with' whom,  for 
a  while,  the  child's  moral  agency  and  responsi- 
bilities are  deposited.  This  follows  from  the 
natural  and  moral  economy  of  God,  in  which 
parents  assume  the  responsibilities  of  their  chil- 
dren. This  is  the  law  that  binds  the  child  to 
the  parent,  and  the  parent  to  God.  At  first 
God  communicates  with  the  infant  child  for 
good  and  provides  for  its  wants  through  the  me- 
dium of  its  parents.  And  the  return  due  from 
the  child,  must  go  up  through  the  same  paren- 
tal medium. 

In  human  governments,  children  partake  of 
the  privileges  of  their  parents.  The  parents 
embody  and  represent  the  right  and  prerogatives 
of  their  children.  Children  are  recognized  as 
members  of  the  body  politic  on  account  of  a 
natural  relation  to  their  parents.  It  follows 
that  they  are  subject  to  civil  responsibilities 
without  their  own  knowledge  or  consent. 
Deeds,  covenants  and  contracts  include  heirs, 
and  descend  charged  with  various  liabilities 
and  conditions,  which  children  cannot  set 
aside,  save  at  their  peril.     Without  such   an 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  21 

arrangement  human  society  would  not  hold 
together.  The  chain  of  order  and  of  law 
would  not  keep  the  body  politic  in  harmony,  if 
this  principle  of  identifying  the  agencies  of  pa- 
rents and  children  should  be  set  aside.  But 
this  principle,  so  essential  to  the  strength  and 
integrity  of  society,  applies  equally  well  to  the 
moral  government  of  God.  Children  were  held 
anciently  in  the  same  relations  to  the  moral 
economy  that  they  naturally  hold  to  the  civil 
compact.  The  churche's  charter  included  them. 
They  were  involuntary  parties  to  the  body 
spiritual,  just  as  they  now  are  to  the  body  poli- 
tic. And  when  in  later  life,  they  resumed  and 
fulfilled  the  conditions  of  their  covenant  rela- 
tions, then,  as  in  civil  relations  now,  they  were 
entitled  to  all  the  stipulated  privileges  and  bles- 
sings of  that  covenant.  Separate  children  from 
the  civil  relations  of  their  parents,  and  weak- 
ness, anarchy,  and  confusion  would  overspread 
society.  Just  so  in  the  moral  kingdom.  Give 
to  children  a  religious  independence  of  their 
parents,  and  a  vital  principle  in  the  moral  econ- 
omy is  set  aside.  The  golden  chain  of  strength 
and  beauty  is  broken  asunder.  Let  parents 
own  and  feel  their  responsibilities  for  their 
children,  as  they  do  those  that  pertain  to  hu- 
man government  and  organized  society,  and  the 


22  a  pastor's  gift 

religious  aspect  of  the  world   would  be   at  once 
changed. 

The  analogy  between  the  arrangements  made 
for  children  in  human  governments  and  the  di- 
vine government,  is  striking.  And  I  ask,  if 
there  would  not  be  more  than  a  bare  probability 
that  where  God  had  established  a  valuable 
principle  in  one  department  of  his  government, 
he  would  carry  that  principle  through  all  the 
departments  of  his  government,  especially  if  it 
harmonized  with  all  the  interests  involved  in 
the  social,  civil  and  moral  economy  !  And  who 
does  not  see  the  suitableness,  the  propriety — the 
obligation  of  parents  covenanting  in  their  chil- 
dren's behalf,  when  they  give  themselves  to  the 
Lord?  Does  it  not  comport  with  the  best  sym- 
pathies and  affections  of  the  parent's  heart? 
Can  they  bear  to  see  their  children  separated 
from  themselves  in  the  participation  of  any 
privelege  or  good.  They  cannot.  Then  do 
not  the  best  emotions  of  our  nature  respond  to 
this  sentiment.  And  when  we  see  this  princi- 
ple of  connecting  parents  with  their  children 
in  their  religious  relations  supported  by  stronor 
analogies  drawn  from  the  other  relations  which 
God  has  established,  shall  we  not  infer  that 
he  who  is  always  consistent  with  himself,  would 
wish  this   principle    to   extend   to   that   which 


to  ins  PEorLE.  23 

is  far  the  most  important  relation-  of  all.  If  a 
recognition  of  the  moral  relations  subsisting 
between  parents  and  children,  and  an  acknowl- 
edgement of  the  responsibility  which  flows 
therefrom,  were  heartily  made  and  faithfully 
carried  out  into  practice  in  all  the  details  of 
duty,  what  precious  results  would  follow ;  what 
rapid  and  wonderful  fulfilments  of  the  ancient 
promise  and  developments  of  gospel  glory  would 
be  witnessed  the  world  over. 

I  ask  again,  can  parents  give  themselves  to 
God  without  giving  to  him  all  they  have  ?  and 
the  kind  of  giving  must  correspond  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  things  given.  The  nature  of  the 
gift  must  determine  the  nature  of  the  giving. 
Silver  is  given  in  one  way, and  moral  beings  in  a- 
nothcr.  The  one  is  given  for  one  purpose, and  the 
other  for  another.  But  can  those  very  offerings 
that  bear  upon  themselvesGod's  own  image  be  left 
behind,  when  parents  present  themselves  to 
the  Lord  ?  Can  they,  whose  natures  are  linked 
with  their  own,  and  whose  responsibility  is 
merged  in  their  own, be  kept  back  when  parents 
bring  their  all  to  the  altar  of  consecration  ? 

Are  christians  married  to  Christ  ?  Then  can 
the  parent  fail  to  involve  his  offspring  in  the  new 
covenant  relation?  Whenever  marriage  takes 
place  beUveen  those  who  had  held  the  relation 


24 


A    PASTOR  S    GIFT 


of  parents  before,  the  new  relation  extends 
necessarily  to  the  children.  And  if  the  parent 
should  refuse  to  let  this  relation  embrace  his 
children,  would  not  the  other  parent  or  party 
feel  it  to  be  a  violation  of  the  marriage  pledge  ? 
Now  believers  arc  married  tc  Christ;  and  does 
he  not  claim  the  offspring  too?  Are  they  not 
virtually  his  own  ?  Does  he  forbid  parents  to 
involve  their  little  ones  in  the  covenant  relation 
with  themselves?  Does  he  forbid  the  little 
children  to  be  brought  to  him  ?  Does  he  refuse 
to  put  his  hand  upon  them  and  bless  them,  and 
own  them,  and  mark  them  as  his  own?  Does 
he  not  say,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven?"  All  this  he  certainly 
does.  And  to  forbid  the  presentation  of  chil- 
dren to  Christ  as  parties  in  the  marriage  relation 
of  the  parents  to  him,  is  contrary  to  nature  !  It 
is  contrary  to  grace  !  Yes  !  It  is  contrary  to 
all  the  other  relations  established  in  Christ's 
kingdom.  It  is  contrary  to  the  acknowledged 
principles  that  prevail  in  the  social,  civil  and 
moral  world. 

Prop.  iv.  The  fact  that  Infant  Baptism 
is  so  generally  practised  in  the  Church j  can- 
not be  accounted  for  upon  the  supposition 


TO   HIS    PEOPLE.  25 

that  it  has  been  introduced,  as  an  ordinance, 
since  the  christian  era. 

The  nature  of  the  ordinance  contradicts  the 
theory  of  its  being  an  innovation.  This  rite 
is  observed  by  most  of  the  sects  that  now  com. 
pose  the  visible  church ;  and  has  been  as  far  back 
asthelightof  history  leads  us.  Here  the  question 
meets  us,  as  to  the  origin  of  this  usage,  and  the 
possibility  of  its  introduction  since  the  new 
testament  times.  We  ask,  how,  when,  where, 
and  by  whom,  wa3  this  ordinance  first  intro- 
duced 1  These  are  fair  questions  for  those  who 
doubt  its  new  testament  origin.  To  answer 
these  questions,  devolves  on  those  who  maintain 
that  this  rite  is  an  invention  of  men.  If  its 
claim  to  bible  authenticity  and  usage  is  disputed, 
let  it  be  shown  to  have  had  a  more  recent  origin. 
Let  it  be  proved  to  have  had  its  birth  in  heresy 
or  imposture.  But  this  is  a  difficult  undertak- 
ing. For  this  custom  must  certainly  have  com- 
menced with  the  apostles,  as  a  lengthening  of 
the  chain  of  circumcision,  and  a  continuance  ol 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  or  it 
must  have  had  its  origin  since  the  christian  era, 
in  imposture  or  pious  fraud.  Now  take  the  lat- 
ter supposition,  and  see  to  what  it  will  inevita- 
bly lead. 

The  standing  plea  set  up  for  this  ordinance, 


26  a  pastor's  gift 

has  always  been,- its  natural  and  necessary  re- 
ationship  to  circumcision.  Right  or  wrong* 
true  or  false,  this  rite  follows  as  a  real  or  a  pre- 
tended continuance  of  infant  circumcision. 
And  as  such,  it  has  always  claimed  a  new  tes- 
tament parentage.  To  start  such  a  religious 
custom  without  assumed  scriptural  authority, 
would  be  an  outrage  upon  the  common  sense 
and  convictions  of  the  church.  Such  an  ordi- 
nance must  bear  sacred  credentials.  An  ordi- 
nance  is  a  public  ceremonial  transaction.  It 
has  a  fixed  form,  and  appeals  to  the  senses  ;  and 
consequently  must  be  something  that  cannot  be 
originated  without  detection,  or  practiced  with* 
out  derived  or  inspired  authority.  For  the  im- 
position of  these  forms  as  novel  isms,  would  strike 
every  one  with  surprise.  It  would  defeat  the  ob- 
ject of  the  innovation.  The  inventor  of  such  a 
usage,  then,  would  stand  in  the  dilemma  of  hav- 
ing nothing  to  sustain  his  pretensions.  He 
could  not  appeal  to  the  custom  of  the  church 
or  the  fathers,  or  ihe  records  of  history,  sacred 
or  profane,  to  sustain  his  imposture.  For  these 
would  all  be  silent  upon  this  subject,  on  the 
present  supposition.  He  could  not  say  that 
our  fathers  and  our  grand  fathers  did  this,  or 
were  bidden  to  do  this,  for  the  incontrovertible 
reply    would  be,    neither  our    fathers   nor   the 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  27 

ancients,  nor  the  historians,  nor  the  chronolo- 
gers,  have  told  us  any  thing  about  this  custom. 
No,  the  originator  of  such  a  rite  would  ha  ve 
to  stand  alone  in  his  authority  to  support  his* 
imposture;  for  upon  the  present  supposition, 
he  is  destitute  of  all  precedent,  or  authority 
but  his  own.  But  I  remarked  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  this  ordinance,  whether 
a  genuine  or  spurious  one,  is  based  on  an  as- 
sumed connection  with  infant  circumcision. 
But  if  this  is  an  unauthorized  usage  that  has 
crept  into  the  church  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  how  could  its  claim  to  have  been 
linked  with  ancient  circumcision  have  been 
possibly  supported  ?  If  it  commenced  three, 
five  or  fifteen  hundred  year3  after  Christ,  how 
could  it  claim  a  connection  with  the  then  obso- 
lete rite  of  circumcision  ?  How  could  it  pretend 
to  be  a  continuation  of  that  which  had 
long  been  extinct?  How  could  its  founder 
have  accounted  for  the  long  lapse  of  years  that 
must  have  intervened  between  the  termination 
of  the  old  rite  and  the  commencing  of  the  new 
one?  How  could  he  account  for  the  lost  links 
thut  were  necessary  to  connect  the  old  chain  of 
infant  circumcision  with  the  new  one  of  infant 
baptism  ?  The  originator  of  this  practice 
must  find  himself  in  a  dilemma    indeed  ;   most 


28  a  pastor's  gift 

wretchedly  destitute  of  claims  and  of  means 
would  he  be,  by  which  to  propagate  his  new 
ordinance.  He  would  have  the  practice  of  the 
whole  church  before  him>  as  a  refutation  of  his 
pretences.  He  would  have  every  thing  against 
him.  He  would  have  the  favorite  argument  of 
its  connection  with  infant  circumcision  against 
him.  He  would  have  the  standing  argument  of 
its  being  the  substituted  seal  of  the  church's 
charter  against  him  ;  for  intervening  years  must 
have  broken  off  that  connection  with  the  ante- 
cedent usage.  He  must  have  the  argument  of 
church  history  traced  to  its  commencement 
against  him;  for  if  he  be  the  starter  of  this 
new  custom,  he  could,  of  course,  have  no  his- 
tory or  precedent  in  its  favor.  And  the  argument 
which  we  draw  from  the  new  testament 
records  and  usage  would  avail  him  nothing,  for 
it  could  not  be  supposed  that  a  bible  ordinance 
would  fall  into  entire  disuse  and  forgetfulness, 
any  more  than  that  an  unauthorized  one,  could 
have  sprung  into  general  use  and  favor.  Either 
is  a  moral  impossibility.  It  comes  then  to  a 
moral  demonstration  that  this  institution  could 
not  have  had  its  origin  in  imposture,  or  the  in- 
ventions of  men.  It  could  not  have  started 
into  use  subsequently  to  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles.    Such   is  its  nature  that  it  must  have  had 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  29 

something  real  and  solid,  ns  a  foundation  to 
stand  upon ;  but  upon  the  present  supposition 
it  had  nothing  but  vain  pretense,  or  wild,  unau- 
thorized speculation. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  introduction  of  a 
new  ordinance  into  the  church  must  have  been 
attended  by  a  sharp  controversy.  And  we  have 
records  of  the  birth  and  life  and  the  obituary  of 
a  score  of  errors  and  schisms  that  have  rent  the 
church  during  the  past  periods  of  its  history. 
But  who  has  given  us  the  history  of  the  origin 
of  this  heresy  1  Who  has  recorded  the  author, 
the  rise  or  the  age  of  this  error?  We  do  often 
find  allusions  to  this  usage,  as  we  shall  show, 
as  far  back  as  the  age  after  which  the  apostles 
were  martyred  ;  but  not  a  note  of  controversy, 
as  touching  its  introduction  can  be  found  in  all 
history. 

Prop.  v.  Though  history  does  not  record 
the  11  se  and  introduction  of  this  custom  into 
the  church,  it  does  record  its  existence  and 
observance  from  the  earliest  periods  of  the 
new  dispensation. 

The  writings   of  the  ancient    fathers  are   re- 
ceived   as    authentic  history  by    all    classes   of 
christians.     Their  religious  speculations  are  to 
be  taken  for  what  they  are  worth.    Their  books 
3* 


30  a  rASTOR's  Girr 

from  the  writings  of  Justin  to  those  of  Augus- 
tine, are  found  in  our  best  libraries,  and  stand 
wholly  above  controversy  or  criticism  in  respect 
to  their  authority.  These  fathers  wrote  before 
popery  had  an  existence';  and  they  give  us  a 
clear  view  of  the  question  of  infant  baptism,  as 
it  related  to  their  times. 

Augustine,  in  a  controversy  with  Pelagius 
concerning  original  sin,  asks  —  "  Why  do 
christians  baptize  infants  if  they  are  sinless?" 
Pelagius  admits  his  premises  but  not  his  con- 
clusions. 

Two  hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  a  con- 
vention of  bishops  met  at  Carthage,  A  country 
bishop  not  being  able  to  be  present,  sent  in  the 
following  question  to  be  discussed.  "  Ought 
children  to  be  baptized  at  their  birth,  or  when 
they  are  eight  days  old."  The  convention 
came  unanimously  to  the  decision  that  they 
should  be  baptised  at  the  earliest  convenient 
period  after  their  birth.  This  question,  you 
see,  had  no  relation  to  the  establishment  of  this 
rite.  It  was  based  on  the  fact  that  it  was  al- 
ready in  general  use. 

Origen,  who  was  born  about  eighty-five  years 
after  the  death  of  John,  like  Augustine,  argued 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin  from  the  universal 
custom  of  infant  baptism  in  his  day.     He    was 


TO    HIS    VT.OVhU.  31 

descended  from  pious  ancestors.  His  father 
must  have  conversed  with  those  who  were  inti- 
mate with  the  older  apostles.  And  Origen 
expressly  declares  that  this  rite  was  received 
from  the  apostles  themselves. 

The  practice  of  infant  baptism  is  often  allu- 
ded to  by  Optatus,  Gregory,  Ambrose,  Basil, 
Cyprian,  Chrisostom,  Jerome  and  others.  It 
was  denied  by  none  in  the  early  church,  except 
those  who  denied  water  baptism  altogether. 
Ireneus,  who  wrote  only  about  fifty  years  after 
the  death  of  John,  alluding  to  this  custom, 
says  "  Christ  came  to  save  all  persons  who  are 
baptized  by  him  unto  God — infants,  little  ones, 
children,  youth  and  elder  persons.' ' 

Justin  wrote  even  earlier  than  Ireneus.  He 
says  "  we  have  not  received  this  carnal  circum- 
cision, but  the  spiritual  circumcision  ;  and  we 
have  received  it  by  baptism." 

One  of  the  early  fathers  wrote  a  tract,  to  set 
forth  the  efficacy  and  value  of  this  ordinance, 
and  to  prevent  its  delay. 

As  an  offset  against  the  historical  proof  in 
favor  of  this  ordinance,  an  able  writer  on  the 
other  side  of  the  question,  urges  the  fact  that 
one  of  those  fathers  opposes  and  condemns  this 
rite.  This  is  partly  true.  He  advised  its  delay 
till    children  had    come  to  years  of  discretion. 


32  a  pastor's  gift 

But  even  if  he  had  condemned  the  practice,  it 
would  only  have  shown  that  the  practice  was  in 
existence.  And  this  is  what  we  wish  to  know. 
The  testimony  of  this  father,  Tertullian,  proves 
that  infant  baptism  was  no  innovation.  For  if 
Tertullion  could  have  shown  that  this  practice 
had  been  introduced  in  his  own  day,  or  at  any 
time  subsequent  to  the  apostles,  he  would  have 
pressed  this  fact  as  an  argument  against  it. 
But  this  he  does  not  do.  He  enters  his  own 
solitary  protest  against  the  too  hasty  performance 
of  a  rite  which  is  supported  by  all  his  contem- 
poraries, and  for  aught  he  pretends  to  show,  by 
all  his  predecessors  since  the  apostles.  For 
he  does  not  quote  the  authority  of  a  single  one 
to  support  his  new  theory. 

We  have  thus  traced  the  records  of  the  church 
back  to  the  writings  of  those  who  shook  hands 
with  apostles  ;  and  we  find  those  early  writers 
conversing  freely  and  without  reserve  upon  the 
great  subject  in  question.  We  now  step  upon 
the  sacred  threshold  of  scripture,  and  ask  for 
further  light  upon  this  subject. 

Prop.  vi.  The  New  Testament  writers 
tin ght  and  practised  just  as  we  should  sup- 
pose they  would  have  done,  provided  infant 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  33 

baptism  idcis  substituted  for  infant  circum- 
cision. 

Notice,  first,  that  it  was  then  an  anciently 
established  custom  to  connect  children  with 
parents  in  the  covenant  relation.  Notice,  too, 
that  children  had  always  received  the  seal  and 
token  of  that  covenant.  This  was  the  estab- 
lished usage  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Their 
prejudices  and  feelings  were  all  strongly  enlisted 
in  its  favor.  From  the  above  principle  and 
usage  they  had  never  departed.  Their  faith 
and  feeling  and  practice  were  unanimously  in 
favor  of  this  custom.  Most  exceedingly  scru- 
pulous were  the  Jews  of  the  recognition  of  this 
principle  and  the  observance  of  this  rite.  Their 
tenaciousness  of  their  covenant  privileges  was 
proverbial. 

Notice  another  fact,  well  established  in  Jew- 
ish history,  that  the  children  of  proselytes,  from 
the  Gentiles  were  always  connected  with  their 
parents  in  the  rites  both  of  circumcision  and  of 
baptism,  for  the  children  of  these  proselytes 
and  their  parents  were  both  circumcised  and 
baptised  as  a  condition  of  their  reception  into 
the  Jewish  church.  Now  suppose  this  long 
established  custom  of  connecting  children  with 
their  parents  in  the  covenant  was  to  be  contin- 


34  a  pastor's  gift 

ued  ;  what  course  should  we  suppose  Christ 
and  his  apostles  would  have  taken  in  reference 
to  this  subject?  why  just  such  a  course  as  they 
actually  did  take — not  certainly  to  enjoin  it,  for 
the  principle  was  already  engraven  upon  the 
memories  and  heart  of  the  nation  ;  but  to 
drop,  occasionally,  such  allusions  and  sugges- 
tions in  respect  to  the  principle  and  its  seal 
as  would  indicate  their  views  of  their  value, 
and  of  the  fact  that  the  long  standing  usage  was 
still  to  be  kept  up. 

But  suppose  this  principle,  of  which  circum- 
cision was  the  seal,  was  to  have  been  abolished 
by  the  planters  of  Christianity,  what  course 
should  we  suppose  they  would  have  taken  in 
reference  to  it.  I  see  but  one  way  before  them; 
and  that  was  to  terminate  it  by  an  express  com- 
mand. Silence  on  their  part  would  not  have 
sufficed  to  effect  this  change.  It  would  have 
been  a  virtual  approbation  of  the  custom.  It 
would  have  given  their  powerful  influence  in 
its  favor.  Their  silence,  I  say, would  have  sanc- 
tioned this  ancient  usage.  So  strong  was  the 
feeling  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  its  favor ;  so 
tenacious  were  the  covenant  people  of  this  dis- 
tinguished privilege ;  so  essential  a  part  of 
their  faith  and  practice  did  their  covenant  and 
its  seal  constitute, that  something  more  than  mere 
silence  would  have  been  necessary  to  do  it  away. 


TO    HIS    FEOPLE.  35 

May  I  not  ask  if  the  absence  of  a  command  to 
drop  this  custom,  and  silence  in  reference  to  it, 
would  not  have  tended  to  confirm  the  views  of 
the  covenant  people  in  its  favor?  Could  that 
people  infer  from  the  nature  of  the  new  seal, 
and  its  relation  to  the  covenant  of  their  fath- 
ers, that  it  was  not  in  all  respects  to  be  a 
successor  of  their  dearly  prized  privilege  of 
circumcision  ? 

A  converted  Jew  would  naturally  have  ex- 
pected that  his  children  would  share  the  same 
privileges  under  the  gospel,  that  they  had  under 
the  law.  The  whole  current  of  their  feelings 
and  expectations  would  have  been  on  the  side  of 
the  continuance  of  this  covenant  privilege.  So 
deeply  graven  was  this  principle  on  their  heart 
and  mind  ;  so  dear  to  them  was  this  distinguish- 
ing feature  of  their  religion,  lhat  a  definite  and 
authoritative  command  would  have  been  needed 
to  change  their  opinions  and  practice  concern- 
ing it.  The  prejudices  of  the  Jews  in  favor  of 
the  custom  that  characterised  the  covenant  of 
their  fathers,  and  their  attachment  to  every 
thing  connected  with  it,  were  strong  enough  to 
carry  it  along  into  the  new  dispensation,  by  its 
own  natural  momentum,  without  a  word  of  en- 
couragement from  the  apostles.  No  express 
command  then,  was   needed,  to  perpetuate  it; 


36 


A    PASTOR  S    GIFT 


but  one  would  have  been  necessary  to  abolish  it. 
Its  identity  with  the  feelings  and  expectations 
of  the  people  of  God  was  a  powerful  law  in  its 
favor.  And  its  removal  would  have  had  to 
breast  a  very  very  strong  tide  of  feeling  in  its 
behalf.  To  enjoin  the  continuance  of  this  old 
testament  principle,  then,  would  have  been  to 
enjoin  that  which  all  understood  and  practised. 
But  to  overthrow  this  ancient  institution,  would 
be  to  work  against  an  ocean  of  feeling  in  its 
favor.  Nothing  less  then,  than  a  very  distinct 
and  peremptory  command  would  have  effected 
this  change.  But  where  in  the  bible,  do  we 
find  such  a  command  1  No  where  !  No  where 
in  that  book,  is  it  even  intimated,  that  parents 
and  children  are  no  longer  to  be  connected  in 
their  religious  relations,  But  I  shall  show,  by 
and  by,  that  the  contrary  of  this  is  true.  One 
thing,  however,  at  a  time.  I  am  upon  the  neg* 
ative  side  of  my  proposition.  I  am  showing  the 
bearings  of  the  absence  of  a  command  to  continue 
this  long  established  principle,  with  its  rite  ; 
and  of  the  silence  of  the  apostles  —  as  far  as 
they  did  keep  silence  —  in  reference  to  it.  This 
all  argues  in  its  favor.  Let  us  illustrate.  Sup- 
pose a  long  established  policy  had  been  pursued 
between  this  country  and  France  —  say  in  refer- 
ence to  commerce  or  emigration,   and  this,  by 


TO    HIS    PEOFLE.  37 

virtue  of  an  ancient  treaty.  But  a  revolution 
takes  place  in  that  country.  The  old  line  of 
kings  is  swept  from  the  throne.  A  new  order 
of  things  succeeds.  But  the  new  government 
is  subtantially  the  same  institution  as  the  old 
one;  having  the  same  constitution  —  the  same 
charter  of  rights.  Our  government  sends  an 
ambassador  to  the  new  court.  But  he  receives 
no  instructions  in  respect  to  a  change  of  policy 
in  reference  to  commerce  and  emmigration. 
His  inference  would  of  course  be,  that  our 
government  intended  to  pursue  the  same  policy, 
in  reference  to  these  matters,  as  formerly.  He 
appears  at  the  French  court,  presents  his  pa- 
pers, and  pursues  the  business  of  his  mission. 
But  he  says  not  a  word  about  a  change  of  pol- 
icy in  reference  to  commerce  and  emmigration. 
What  inference  would  the  French  cabinet  draw 
from  his  silence,  in  reference  to  these  matters? 
Not,  surely,  that  there  was  to  be  a  change 
in  respect  to  them.  Farthest.from  ihis,  possi- 
ble !  No !  there  would  be  no  doubt  in  their 
minds,  that  the  former  policy  was  to  remain. 

But  we  will  vary  the  illustration  to  meet  the 
case  more  exactly.  Suppose  that  under  the 
old  government,  the  French  people  had  enjoyed 
certain  privileges  that  were  very  dear  to  them. 
We   will  suppose  that  they  had  reference  to 

4 


38  a  pastor's  gift 

religious  freedom  or  general  education.  The 
new  government  goes  into  power.  But  not  a 
word  is  said  in  respect  to  these  subjects  of  so 
much  interest  to  the  people.  What  conclusion 
would  the  French  nation  draw  from  the  silence 
of  their  rulers,  in  reference  to  these  matters  1 
Would  they — could  they  doubt,  for  a  moment, 
that  things  were  going  to  continue  as  before  1 
Would  not  the  silence  of  the  government  be  a 
consent,  on  their  part,  to  let  the  former  state  of 
things  remain?  But  suppose  the  political  prin- 
ciples adopted,  and  course  pursued,  by  their  new 
rulers,  should  harmonize  with  those  followed  by 
their  former  ones,  and  with  the  rights  so  long 
enjoyed  by  the  people;  would  a  shadow  of 
doubt  remain  on  their  minds,  that  the  ancient 
policy  was  going  to  continue  ? 

Now  let  us  apply  this  illustration  to  the  case 
in  question.  There  was  a  sealed  covenant  in 
vouge  under  the  old  dispensation,  relating  to 
previleges  enjoyed  by  children,  in  connection 
with  their  parents.  The  old  dispensation  passed 
away.  But  the  primitive  church  and  its  charter 
remained; — as  will  be  shown  in  another  place. 
It  was  essentially  the  same  great  establishment 
as  before;  but  existing  in  a  new  and  improved 
form.  The  ministers  under  the  gospel  go  forth 
and  publish  everywhere, — but  first  to  the  Jews, 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  J39 

the  same  religion  substantially  as  before,  dif- 
fering only  in  the  clearer  light  which  the  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy  and  the  ancient  types  opened 
upon  the  world.  But  not  a  word  is  said  about 
a  change  in  respect  to  the  covenant  previleges 
of  that  people.  Under  the  ancient  economy, 
children  were  involved  in  the  covenant  of  their 
parents,  and  received  upon  their  flesh  the  seal 
of  that  covenant.  The  new  dispensation  opened  ; 
but  no  command  is  heard,  to  abolish  this  cus- 
tom;  no  intimation  is  made  in  reference  to  any 
change  in  respect  to  it.  How  then,  could  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt  remain  on  the  minds  of  that 
people,  thai  their  cherished  covenant  with  its 
new  seal,  were  to  remain  in  force  under  the  new 
dispensation. 

To  be  sure,  if  no  seal  had  been  established  in 
lieu  of  the  old  one,  it  might  have  been  inferred 
that  this  covenant  relation  would  cease  with  the 
old  seal.  But  as  a  seal  was  established  in  place  of 
circumcision,  the  conclusion  that  the  former 
principle,  in  reference  to  its  application,  was  to 
remain,  would  be  irresistible.  Nothing  short 
of  a  positive  command  would  have  wrought  a 
change  in  the  general  feelings  and  prejudices  of 
the  ancient  people.  In  accordance  with  analo- 
gies drawn  from  the  various  other  relations 
which  God  had  established  in  his  government, 
children    had   been    wont  to  receive  the  deed 


40  a  pastor's  gift 

of  their  birth-right,  and  seal  of  their  heirship  in 
infancy.  Their  parents  had  always  set  this  prin- 
ciple to  the  seal  of  their  own  covenant.  Such  was 
the  state  of  things  under  the  theocracy  of  the 
church.  But  the  Christianity  of  the  church  suc- 
ceeded ;  predicated,  as  will  be  shown,  upon  the 
same  covenant  as  before.  A  new  seal  was  adopted 
But  not  a  word  is  said,  in  the  records  of  Chris- 
tianity, or  the  writings  of  its  founders,  in  re- 
spect to  any  change  in  reference  either  to  the 
covenant,  or  the  application  of  its  seal.  Now 
if  there  was  not  a  word  said  to  favor  our  view, 
in  the  gospel, — which  is  very  far  from  the  fact — 
even  then,  we  should  be  compelled  to  conclude 
that  the  former  custom  was  to  continue  under 
the  new  dispensation. 

But  upon  this  hinge  we  will  turn  from  the 
negative,  to  the  positive  view  of  our  proposition. 
We  think  it  stands  in  proof,  as  clear  as  sun- 
light, that  if  this  ancient  covenant  and  its  ap- 
pendages, were  to  terminate  at  the  christian  era, 
a  command  to  that  effect  would  have  been  call- 
ed for;  but  if  they  were  to  continue,  such  a 
command  would  have  been  needless.  So  far 
then  as  the  fact  of  the  alleged  silence  of  the 
apostles,  or  the  absence  of  a  command  to 
perpetuate  this  custom,  affects  our  argument, 
it  is  all  on  our  side.     It  is  all  in  its  favors. 

But  our   proposition  assumes  that    the  new 


TO    HIS     PEOPLE.  41 

testament  authors  wrote  and  practiced,  just 
as  we  should  have  expected,  provided  infant 
baptism  was  going  to  take  the  place  of  infant 
circumcision. — They  often  allude  to  children 
as  if  connected  in  covenant  with  their  parents. 
Christ  rebuked  those  who  forbade  little  children 
to  come  unto  him,  and  gave  tokens  of  approba- 
tion to  those  who  brought  them.  He  declared 
that  his  own  kingdom  embraced  them.  Of 
such,  says  he,  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Peter  assured  those  whom  he  addressed  at 
the  feast  of  Pentecost  that  the  promise  was  to 
them  and  their  children.  This  declaration  fol- 
lows the  command,  "repent  and  be  baptised." 
He  thus  gives  as  a  reason  for  this  command, 
the  fact  that  the  promise  had  been  made  to  them 
and  their  children.  Children  must,  therefore, 
have  been  involved  in  the  command  in  question, 
so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case  would  admit. 

Again  Paul  speaks  of  tli£  effect  of  the  faith  of 
but  one  of  the  parents  upon  their  children. 
Then,  says  he,  are  the  children  holy, — or  to  be 
devoted  to  the  Lord.  He  declares  again,  that 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  had  come  upon  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ.  But  how  .did 
that  blessing  reach  the  Gentiles  ?  Answer, 
through  the  covenant  that  had  run  down  theline 
of  his  seed.     In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of 


42  a  pastor's  gift 

the  earth  be  blessed.  But  what  was  it  that 
constituted  the  richest  part  of  that  blessing.  It 
was  the  chain  that  bound  parents  and  children 
together  in  their  religious  relations.  It  was  the 
principle  that  linked  the  present  to  the  future, 
that  bound  generations  together  ;  and  conveyed 
covenant  blessings  to  posterity.  But  did  the 
covenant  of  Abraham  reach  the  Gentiles  divest- 
ed of  that  which  constituted  its  principal  excel- 
lency?    We  confidently  answer,  no  ! 

Again,  the  apostle  speaks  of  baptising  house- 
holds, which  generally  include  children.  Lydia, 
it  is  said,  believed;  and  she  and  her  household 
were  baptised.  Here  is  plainly  a  case  of  house- 
hold consecration,  and  baptism.  It  appears 
that  only  Lydia  herself  believed,  but  that,  upon 
her  believing,  her  whole  household  were  bap- 
tised with  her.  There  is  no  intimation  in  the 
narrative  that  a  single  individual  of  her  house- 
hold believed,  except  herself.  Were  it  other* 
wise,  why  does  not  the  historian  tell  us  the  fact  ? 
Why  not  inform  us  that  the  "Lord  opened  the 
hearts"  of  Lydia's  children  and  servants,  so 
that  they,  as  well  as  herself,  "gave  heed  to  the 
things  spoken  by  Paul  V  If  they,  as  well  as 
she,  believed,  why  did  not  the  writer  speak  of 
their  helievinv,  as  well  as  their  baptism  ?  Did 
the  fact  of  their    baptism  interest   the  inspired 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  43 

historian  so  much  more  than  that  of  their  faith, 
that  he  should  record  the  former  and  pass  the 
latter  in  silence? 

The  Jailor,  we  are  told,  believed":  and  he 
and  his  household  were  baptised.  The  exact 
translation  of  this  passage  would  make  the 
word  "believed"  to  refer  solely  to  the  jailor. 
It  reads  in  the  Greek  as  follows: — "And  he 
made  a  feast,  and  rejoiced,  together  with  all  his 
household,  himself  having  believed."  Believed 
is  in  the  singular  number,  and  refers  to  the 
jailor  only. 

And  Paul  tells  us,  moreover,  that  he  baptised 
the  household  of  Stephanus. 

Now  it  was  very  rarely  that  Paul  baptised  at 
all.  And  it  seems  that  in  about  every  case 
where  he  is  said  to  have  baptised,  he  baptised 
whole  households.  In  fact,  it  is  seldom  that 
the  new  testament  writers  ever  record  cases  of 
baptism ;  though  it  would  seem  that  they  al- 
ways administered  the  rite  where  there  were 
proper  subjects  for  baptism  They  were  com- 
manded to  do  so  by  Christ.  "Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,''  &/C.  And  yet  the  performance  of  this 
rite,  in  circumstances  where  children  could 
possibly  have  been  included,  is  very  rarely  men* 
tioned.  I  do  not  now  recollect  a  single  case  of 
this  kind,  except  where  it  is  affirmed  that  whole 


44  a  pastor's  gift 

households  zoere  actually  baptised.  Allusions 
are  as  frequently  made  to  household  baptism, 
then,  as  the  nature  of  the  case  would  admit. 

Now  connect  these  bible  facts  with  those  of 
history,  brought  to  view  under  the  preceding 
proposition,  and  it  will  be  clear  to  a  candid 
mind,  that  the  course  taken  by  the  apostles  was 
perfectly  natural  and  consistent,  upon  the  ground 
— and  only  upon  the  ground,  that  the  principle 
of  connecting  children  with  their  parents  in  the 
covenant  relation,  and  applying  to  them  the 
seal  of  that  covenant,  was  to  continue  under 
the  gospel  dispensation.  Step  forward  a  cen- 
tury from  the  apostles,  and  you  find  the  church 
all  agreed  in  observing  this  rite.  They  speak 
of  it  as  a  bible  institution,  and  refer  to  apostolic 
usage  and  authority.  Is  not  the  practise  of  the 
church  during  the  centuries  subsequent  to  the 
apostles,  a  commentary  upon  numerous  passages 
in  their  writings,  that  refer  to  this  and  kindred 
subjects.  I  ask  also,  if  the  consistency  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles  can  be  vindicated  on 
any  other  ground,  than  that  infant  baptism  was 
to  take  the  place  of  infant  circumcision. 

And  now  in  conclusion,  I  ask,  if  a  principle, 
so  strongly  interwoven  with  all  the  prejudices 
and  habits  of  the  Jewish  people,  had  been  drop- 
ped,   at  the  christian    era,  would  they   not  have 


TO    HIS   PEOPLE.  45 

complained  on  account  of  such  a  deprivation? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  this.  So  strong  was 
their  attachment  to  every  thing  connected  with 
their  religion,  that  if  they  had  suffered  such  a 
deprivation  of  privileges  under  the  gospel, 
we  should  have  heard  them  loudly  murmuring 
on  that  account.  With  much  opposition  and 
remonstrance  would  the  covenant  people  have 
submitted  to  such  a  change.  A  religion  that 
did  not  embrace  that  one  elementary  principle 
of  his  faith*  would  have  been  the  last  religion 
on  earth  that  a  Jew  would  have  embraced. 
Now,  much  as  we  hear  them  complain  of  other 
matters,  we  never  hear  from  the  Jews  a  word 
of  complaint  as  to  any  privation  in  this  respect. 
Not  a  note  of  murmer  do  we  hear  from  Jewish 
converts,  concerning  a  loss  of  privileges  on  the 
part  of  their  children.  Minds  wedded  to  the 
principle  of  connecting  children  in  covenant 
with  their  parents,  would  be  exceedingly  slow  to 
yield  that  principle.  Whatever  constitutes  the 
peculiar  characteristic  of  a  people,  is  very  re- 
luctantly yielded  ;  and  a  loss  of  that  privilege 
usually  gives  rise  to  long  and  loud  complaints. 
But  the  bible  does  not  record  a  single  murmur 
or  complaint  from  the  Jews,  concerning  a  loss 
of  covenant  privileges. 


46  pastor's  gift 

Prop,  vil  A  correct  view  of  the  Abraham- 
ic  covenant  settles  the  question  of  infant 
baptism. 

The  visible  church  on  earth  is  constituted  by 
its  charter.  The  literal  foundation  for  that 
church  was  laid  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 
There  is  a  sense  in  which  the  church  had  an 
indistinct  existence  even  before  its  constitution 
was  formed.  Our  own  government  had  the 
shadow  of  an  existence  when  the  Pilgrims  plan- 
ted themselves  upon  these  shores.  Its  existence 
was  more  distinct  when  these  colonies  declared 
themselves  tree  ;  and  still  more  when  their  in- 
dependence whs  acknowledged.  And  yet  our 
confederated  form  of  government  had  its  proper 
existence  when  its  constitution  was  formed  and 
acceeded  to  by  the  people.  So  the  church  had 
a  shadowy  existence  before  the  flood  —  perhaps 
in  Adam.  There  were  good  men  in  those 
early  times — there  were  sacrifices  —  there  were 
worship  and  divine  communications.  But  there 
was  no  visible,  sealed  covenant  entered  into  be- 
tween God  and  his  people,  as  constituting  the 
charter  of  an  organized,  visible  church.  The 
foundation  of  the  church  was  laid  in  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham.  This  covenant  preceded 
the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  establishment  of 


TO    HIS    PEdPLE.  47 

the  Jewish  economy  by  more  than  four  hundred 
years.  It  was  therefore  wholly  distinct  from  the 
covenant  mentioned  in  Gal.  iv  :  34,  and  declar- 
ed to  be  the  covenant  from  Mount  Sinai,  which 
gendereth  to  bondage  ;  —  mentioned,  moreover, 
in  Heb.  viii :  7,  as  a  defective  covenant,  and 
dated  from  the  day  when  God  took  Israel  from 
Egypt.  This  latter  covenant  was  one  of  works 
—  symbolised  by  a  perishable,  tabernacle.  But 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  a  covenant  of 
faith,  running  through  the  Jewish  economy  and 
giving  it  a  Gospel  complexion  and  bearing  —  but 
spreading  itself  out  in  its  richness  of  blessing 
and  fullness  of  glory  over  the  final  dispensa- 
tion. It  was  an  everlasting  covenant.  So  both 
testaments  declare  it  to  be.  If  the  covenant  of 
works  given  on  Sinai  could  not  disannul  this 
covenant  of  faith,  much  less  could  the  abroga- 
tion of  that  perishable  covenant  destroy  the  one 
which  its  first  establishment  did  not  supercede. 
Examine  for  a  moment,  this  first  covenant, 
Gen.  xvii,  —  "And  I  will  make  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father 
of  many  nations.  I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee 
in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  Cove- 
nant; to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee."     "And   my   covenant  shall   be  in 


48  a  pastor's  gift 

your  flesh,  for  an  everlasting  covenant, "  "Thou 
shalt  keep  my  covenant,  thou  and  thy  seed  after 
thee  in  their  generations.  And  ye  shall  cir- 
cumcise the  flesh  of  your  foreskin,  and  it  shall 
be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you." 
Such  was  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  It 
was  called  the  "  covenant  of  circumcision." 
That  is,  it  has  circumcision  for  its  seal.  And 
it  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  at  noon,  that  this  cove- 
nant was  a  perpetual  instrument,  and  had  refer- 
ence principally,  to  the  gospel  dispensation. 
Let  us  demonstrate  this  fact.  Read  Luke  i :  54, 
55.  "  He  hath  holpen  his  servant  Israel,  in 
remembrance  of  his  mercy  —  his  covenant;  as 
he  spake  to  our  fathers,  to  Abraham  and  to  his 
seed  forever."  Paul  speaks  of  this  covenant,  as 
one  of  promise,  "  confirmed  of  God,  in  Christ." 
But  if  Christ  confirmed  this  covenant,  certainly 
he  did  not  abolish  it.  Again,  says  he,  "  if  the 
inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more  of 
promise  ;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  prom- 
ise," or  covenant.  Again,  he  declares  that  "the 
blessing  of  Abraham  was  to  come  on  the  Gentiles 
through  Jesus  Christ."  But  how  could  this  be, 
if  Christ  abolished  the  instrument  or  covenant 
that  secured  that  blessing.  Again,  he  says,  "  if 
ye  are  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  ac- 
cording to  the  promise  "  or  covenant.      Again, 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  49 

he  calls  Abraham,  "the  father  of  all  them  that 
believe."  But  how  could  that  be,  if  the  cove- 
nant made  with  him,  was  abolished  by  Christ- 
Again  ;  believers  under  the  gospel,  are  spoken 
of  as  "  children  under  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham." That  covenant  then,  runs  along  into 
the  gospel  dispensation.  Again,  Romans,  xi. 
The  Jewish  branches  are  said  to  have  been 
broken  off,  that  the  wild  olive  tree  of  the  Gen- 
tiles might  be  grafted  in.  Grafted  into  what? 
That  in  which  the  Jews  had  stood  —  the  cove_ 
nant  of  Abraham.  Therefore  the  Gentiles  were 
grafted  into  the  same  tree,  or  covenant  from 
which  the  Jewish  people  were  broken  off. 
Again,  after  the  fulness  of  the  gentiles  shall 
have  been  gathered  in,  it  is  foretold,  that  the 
Jews  are  again  to  he  grafted  into  their  own 
olive  tree,  and  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved.  For 
this  is  my  covenant  unto  them,  says  God,  when 
I  shall  take  away  their  sins.  By  unbelief, 
the  Jews  had  forfeited  their  place  in  the  cov- 
enant of  faith.  But  when  their  unbelief  shall 
have  been  taken  away,  they  are  to  be  re-grafted 
into  that  covenant  from  which  they  had  been 
broken  off.  The  Christian  Gentile  church  now 
stands  in  that  primitive  covenant;  and  they 
stand  by  faith.     They  stand  upon  the  covenant 

5 


50 


A    PASTOR  8    GIFT 


of  promise  —  the  everlasting  covenant  of  both 
the  old  and  new  testaments. 

The  church  and  its  covenant  are  the  same, 
then,  under  both  dispensations.  But  note  one 
fact.  A  grand  peculiarity  of  this  first  covenant, 
was,  that  it  included  children  in  its  privileges, 
with  their  parents.  The  great  distinguishing 
feature  of  this  covenant  was  that  it  connected 
children  with  their  parents,  in  its  pale.  It 
seized  hold  of  the  true  element  of  moral  influ- 
ence. It  made  the  most  of  the  parental  relation. 
It  touched  the  finest  chord  in  human  nature. 
It  pressed  the  most  powerful  spring  in  the  mor- 
al world.  It  recognized  the  responsibilities  of 
parents  for  their  offspring.  It  illustrated  and 
sanctioned  their  natural  and  moral  identity. 
This  principle  harmonizes  with  the  relations 
which  subsist  between  children  and  parents  in 
the  civil  and  social  world.  Erase  this  one  feature 
of  that  covenant  and  you  annihilate  it.  Take 
away  this  leading  characteristic,  and  you  make 
the  covenant  null  and  void.  You  cut  the  cords 
of  its  connection  with  coming  generations. 
Separate  the  civil  responsibilities  of  children 
and  their  parents  and  you  destroy  human  gov- 
ernments. The  civil  covenant  that  involves 
children  and  minors  with  their  guardians  con- 
stitutes the  strength  and  perpetuity  of  the  civil 


TO   nis   PEOPLE.  51 

compact.  Just  so,  if  you  take  away  the  moral 
dependence  of  children  on  their  parents,  and 
dissolve  the  religious  relations  and  identity 
which  subsist  between  them  in  God's  moral 
government,  and  you  remove  a  central  pil- 
lar in  that  government.  You  break  the  golden 
chain  of  strength  and  perpetuity  /that  binds  the 
present  to  the  future,  and  the  whole  to  heaven. 

The  covenant  of  Abraham  seized  upon  this 
vital  principle.  It  recognized  this  first  element 
of  moral  agency.  It  developed  the  true  idea  of 
moral  propagation.  This  covenant  was  a  bill  of 
rights  —  an  incontestible  legacy,  which  the 
child,  unless  he  should  sell  his  birthright  and 
spurn  the  blessing  of  God  from  him,  was  to 
inherit. 

This  distinguishing  feature  of  the  first  cove- 
nant was  indicated  and  ratified  by  the  seal  of 
circumcision.  Abraham  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uneircumcised, 
that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve.    Romans  iv  :  2. 

Now  a  perpetual  covenant  must  have  a  per- 
petual seal  in  some  form.  The  validity  as  well 
as  perpetuity  of  a  covenant,  depends  on  the  con- 
tinuance of  its  seal. 

The  final  question  now  comes,  has   this  un- 


52  a  pastor's  gift 

changeable  covenant  any  seal  now  ?  There  is  no 
controversy  here.  All  admit  that  the'application 
of  water  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.  But  is  the  seal  of  water  to  be 
more  limited  than  was  that  of  circumcision? 
Where  in  the  bible,  do  we  find  the  warrant  ever 
to  narrow  the  application  of  that  seal  ?  The 
church  is  the  same  constitutionally  under  both 
dispensations.  The  covenant  of  Abraham,  in- 
cluding the  offspring  of  believers,  is  an  un- 
changeable covenant.  It  is  a  deed  of  blessings, 
warranted  by  its  seal,  which  neither  time  nor  place 
nor  age,  can  annul.  This  covenant  is  in  vogue 
now.  It  is  the  charter  of  the  christian  church. 
Its  primitive  peculiarity  of  connecting  children 
with  their  parents,  remains  unaltered,  and  will 
to  the  end.  Shall  the  seal  that  indicates  and 
perpetuates  this  principle  be  applied  as  formerly? 
We  answer,  yes.  For  if  a  change  was  to  take 
place  under  the  new  dispensation  of  the  church, 
in  reference  to  the  recognition  of  this  great 
principle  that  marked  the  church's  covenant 
at  the  first,  or  the  application  of  the  seal  of 
that  covenant,  to  the  children  of  believers, 
would  not  the  faithful  Savior  have  informed  us 
of  that  fact  ?  Or  would  not  the  honest  and 
truth-telling  Paul  or  Peter  have  taken  the  veil 
from  the  eyes  of  the  church. 


TO  HIS  PEOPLE.  53 


RECAPITULATION. 


Prop.  i.  Children  are  moral  beings  though 
not  moral  agents.  They  are  subjects  of  God's 
moral  government ;  and  as  such,  their  public 
consecration  is  his  due  and  desire. 

PpvOp.  ii.  In  the  moral  kingdom  consecra- 
tions and  vows  have  their  approprite  rite  or  seal. 
This  renders  them  visible,  valid  and  permanent ; 
it  adds  to  their  moral  force  and  general  influ- 
ence. 

Prop.  hi.  Parents  assume  for  their  infant 
children  whatever  pertains  to  their  natural, 
mental  and  moral  welfare.  The  infant  child  of 
itself,  has  no  responsibility.  The  parent's 
responsibility  covers  that  of  his  offspring.  The 
parent  is  bound  to  do  in  all  respects  for  the 
child,  what  the  child  would  be  bound  to  do  for 
itself,  if  it  were  of  age.  This  is  illustrated  by 
the  relation  of  children  to  parents,  under  human 
governments.  Consequently  their  consecration 
and  public  presentation  to  God  devolves  on  their 
parents.  This  was  illustrated  by  what  takes 
place  in  the  marriage  covenant  where  there  were 
children  previously.  Believers  are  said  to  be 
5* 


54  a  pastor's  gift 

"married   to  Christ.''      Christ  then  claims  the 
offspring. 

Prop.  iv.  From  the  nature  of  infant  baptism 
we  cannot  see  how  it  could  possibly  be  institu- 
ted after  the  time  when  it  claims  to  have  been. 
An  attempt  to  establish  such  a  visible,  monu- 
mental ordinance  would  defeat  itself.  There 
must  have  been  a  long  chasm  between  that 
which  it  claims  as  authority  and  as  a  foundation, 
and  the  commencement  of  the  rite  itself,  which 
involves  an  absurdity. 

Prop.  v.  Church  history  records  the  exis- 
tence and  observance  of  this  rite,  from  the 
earliest  periods  of  the  new  testament  dispensa- 
tion. 

Prop.  vi.  The  new  testament  writers  talked 
and  practised  just  as  we  should  have  supposed 
they  would,  in  case  infant  baptism  took  the  place 
of  infant  circumcision.  They  often  allude  to 
the  principle  on  which  the  former  rite  was 
founded,  and  they  speak  of  their  own  practice 
as  if  they  were  conforming  to  this  ancient  cus- 
tom. They  do  not,  it  is  true,  enjoin  this 
custom  ;  for  it  was  needless  for  them  so  to  do. 
But  what  is  more  important  to  our  argument, 
they   do  not  forbid  it>      This   fact  cannot   be 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  55 

accounted  for  on  any  other  ground,  than  that  it 
was  to  continue. 

Prop.  vii.  The  covenant  of  Abraham  is  an 
everlasting  one.  It  embraced  in  its  pale  belie- 
vers and  their  offspring.  Children  as  well  as 
their  parents  were  inscribed  on  its  seal.  This 
covenant  comes  with  all  its  principles  and 
privileges  into  the  new  dispensation  1  The  Jews 
are  finally,  at  the  millennium,  to  be  re-grafted 
intoit.  The  seal  of  this  covenant  now,  is  water. 
Its  application  must  be  as  general  as  that  of  the 
former  seal,  unless  we  have  an  express  command 
to  the  contrary.  This  command  the  bible  does 
not  contain.  Therefore,  infant  baptism  is  a 
bible  ordinance. 

CONCLUDING    REMARKS. 

Baptized  children  and  youth.  You  have  been 
favored  with  pious  parents.  You  have  enjoyed 
peculiar  privileges.  You  were  early  consecra- 
ted to  God  upon  the  altar  of  baptism.  Your 
parents  took  upon  themselves  covenant  vows  in 
your  behalf.  They  involved  you  in  their  own 
covenant  relations  to  God.  They  did  it  because 
you  were  theirs,  and  they  were  God's :  and 
because  you  were  theirs,  and  you  too,  were 
God's.  They  looked  upon  you  as  moral  and 
immortal  beings  — as  subjects  of  God's  govern- 


56  a  pastor's  gift 

ment  —  and  parts  of  his  precious  family.  They 
felt  that  God  had  a  right  to  you.  They  felt 
that  their  own  consecration  would  have  been 
defective  and  unsatisfactory  to  God,  if  it  had 
not  included  you.  There  would  have  been  a 
breach  in  their  covenant  contract  and  vows  if 
you,  who  were  parts  of  themselves,  had  been 
left  behind.  They  could  not  do  it;  they  dared 
not.  They  anticipated  your  duty  —  your  re- 
sponsibility. They  did  for  you  what  it  would 
have  been  your  duty  to  do  for  yourselves,  if  you 
had  been  capable  of  moral  agency.  They  took 
upon  themselves  your  vows  and  covenant  obli- 
gations. But  they  were  to  bear  them  alone,  no 
longer  than  while  you  were  incapable  of  assu-, 
ming  them  yourselves.  But  the  time  has  now 
come  when  those  responsibilities  assumed  for 
you  by  your  parents  have  rolled  upon  you.  I 
fear  many  of  you  have  thus  far  neglected  them. 
It  may  be  that  your  parents  have  been  unfaith- 
ful in  the  discharge  of  their  covenant  vows  in 
your  behalf.  Perhaps  they  have  not  reminded 
you  of  those  vows  as  frequently  as  they  should 
have  done.  If  so,  a  criminal  fault  rests  upon 
them  ;  and  a  loss  it  is,  indeed,  that  you  have 
suffered  on  account  of  such  neglect.  I  would 
hope,  however,  that  your  parents  have  been 
faithful  to   you  and  to  their   covenant  rcsponsi- 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  57 

bilities  in  your  behalf.  In  either  case,  your 
responsibilities  are  great :  but  if  your  parents 
have  been  faithful  to  you,  they  are  tremendous  ; 
they  are  overwhelming.  You  stand  in  covenant 
with  God.  You  are  involved  in  vows,  to  live 
to  his  glory  and  to  die  in  his  service.  These 
obligations  you  can  never  throw  off,  without 
abjuring  your  responsibilities  to  God.  If  you 
fail  to  assume  and  perform  the  vows  made  for 
you,  you  repudiate  the  divine  claims  —  you 
break  allegiance  with  God,  and  voluntarily  sell 
your  birthright.  Dare  you  do  this  1  Dare  you 
take  this  responsibility  ?  And  dare  you  take 
the  tremendous  consequences  1  Then  come  at 
once  to  Christ ;  resign  yourselves  to  him : 
espouse  his  holy  cause ;  assume  for  yourselves 
the  obligations  assumed  for  you  in  your  infancy, 
and  ratify  by  your  own  acts  the  consecration 
then  made  in  your  behalf.  And  God  will  re- 
ceive you;  he  will  receive  the  offering  thus 
made  over  again,  as  doubly  precious  to  himself. 
And  your  parent's  hearts  will  be  filled  with 
gladness  —  your  own  souls  will  overflow  with 
comfort  and  hope,  and  joy  will  be  felt  in  heav- 
en. 

Parents  whohave  offered  their  children  in  bap- 
tism.  As  I  address  you,  beloved  christian  friends, 
I  have  the  happiness  to  know  that  I  do  not  ad- 


58  a  pastor's  gift 

dress  the  indifferent  and  the  unfeeling.  If  you 
have  aught  of  grace  in  your  hearts,  this  subject 
is  one  of  intense  interest  to  you.  It  is  one 
which  I  trust  you  have  pondered  well,  and  the 
signification  of  which  is  engraven  deep  on  your 
hearts.  You  are  aware  that  the  power  of  this 
ordinance  does  not  consist  in  the  sprinkling  of 
water  upon  the  brow  of  the  child,  nor  in  the 
service  said  at  the  altar.  It  consists  rather  in 
the  deep  and  perennial  responses  that  go  up 
from  parent's  hearts.  This  ordinance  is  itself 
a  creed.  The  truths  symbolized  in  it,  are  of 
vital  importance ;  deeply  ought  they  to  be  gra- 
ven on  every  parent's  heart.  The  truth  of 
depravity  is  taught  in  this  rite.  The  wash- 
ing of  regeneration  is  shadowed  forth  in 
it.  The  necessity  of  the  outpouring  of  the 
holy  spirit  upon  the  child,  as  essential  to  its 
salvation,  is  expressed  in  this  ordinance.  But 
this  is  not  all.  When  you  bring  your  child  to 
the  altar,  you  say  it  is  Christ's  —  that  he  has 
redeemed  it  —  that  he  owns  it,  and  claims  it  as 
his  own.  You  say  that,  if  saved  ever,  it  must 
be  saved  through  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  the  sealing  of  the  spirit  of  promise.  You 
thus  publicly  give  to  Christ  what  he  acknowl- 
edges and  claims  as  his  own.  You  involve  in 
your   own   covenant    vows,   your   unconscious 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  59 

offspring.  You  throw  about  them  a  chain  of 
responsibility  —  and,  it  never  by  you  or  them- 
selves broken,  a  chain  of  salvation  ;  and  if 
you  hold  on  upon  that  chain  of  promise,  and 
treat  your  children  as  if  involved  with  you  in 
the  covenant  of  life  —  teaching  them,  warning 
them,  and  praying  for  them ;  that  chain  will 
bear  them  with  you,  aloft  to  the  heavenly  world. 
Train  up  these  little  ones  in  the  way  they  should 
go ;  and  they  will  be  yours  spiritually,  for  you 
are  God's. 

The  sprinkling  of  water,  then,  is  but  the 
visible  token  and  counterpart  of  invisible  and 
never-to-be-forgotten  vows.  Let  me  now  ask 
you,  have  you  regarded  your  children  all  along 
as  the  Lord's  ?  Have  you  looked  upon  them  as 
lent  to  you  for  a  little  while,  to  be  trained  for  a 
better  world  ? 

Do  you  feel  that  you  are  parents  of  children 
now  not  your  own,  —  that  those  consecrated 
ones  are  given  forever  to  God  ?  Do  you  realize 
that  in  high  heaven  are  recorded  vows  and 
pledges  that  will  appear  at  another  day  1  Those 
vows  may  have  been  obliterated  from  your 
hearts.  The  rust  of  worldliness  may  have  grown 
over  them.  But  if  so,  the  light  of  the  last  day, 
like  lightning  flashes,  will  bring  those  vows  to 
view   again,  and  in   letters  of  fire  !     Oh,  then, 


60  a  pastor's  gift 

keep  those  vows  vividly  in  view  every  day  : 
and  act  up  to  their  import.  Do  this,  and  you 
will  entail  the  blessings  of  the  everlasting  cov- 
enant upon  your  children,  and  your  children's 
children,  to  the  latest  generation.  And  who 
can  fathom  the  joy  that  will  overflow  your 
hearts  when  you  appear  before  God  with  the 
children  he  has  given  you.  A  family  in  heaven ! 
The  parent's  brow  encircled  with  shining  spirits 
—  shining  spirits  —  their  children  in  glory. 

Believing  parents  who  have  not  offered  their 
children  in  baptism.  I  trust  that  you  are  willing 
to  do  your  duty  when  it  is  clearly  made  known 
to  you.  Perhaps  you  have  waived  this  subject, 
at  present,  to  wait  for  further  light  and  stronger 
impressions  of  duty.  But  is  not.  the  path  of 
duty  now  sufficiently  clear?  I  refer  you  to  the 
argument  which  this  treatise  presents  upon  the 
subject.  Has  it  not  been  fairly  and  candidly 
conducted?  Are  not  the  results  legitimate  and 
conclusive  ?  In  view  of  this  whole  subject, 
can  you  longer  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptised,  concerning  whom  Christ  has 
said,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Do  those  germs  of  rational  and  immortal  life,  in 
the  view  of  the  Savior,  belong  to  his  own  king, 
dom  ?  Are  they,  while  in  infancy,  by  his  own 
acknowledgment,  heirs   of  heaven,  and    candi- 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  61 

dates  for  the  upper  kingdom?  Is  the  relation 
of  your  babes  to  Christ  and  his  kingdom  such, 
that  if  the  frosts  of  death  should  cut  them  down 
like  early  budding  flowers,  they  would,  in  an 
instant,  bloom  in  a  better  land  ?  Then  ought 
you  not  to  treat  them  as  Christ's  now?  If 
these  little  ones  are  his  by  his  own  acknowl- 
edgment, dare  you  withhold  from  them  the  seal 
of  his  covenant  and  kingdom?  Do  you  believe 
that  Christ  would  replant  these  flowers  in  the 
paradise  above,  if  the  scythe  of  death  should 
too  early  mow  them  down,  and  yet  fear  that  he 
would  be  offended  if  they  were  only  planted  on 
the  margin  of  his  kingdom  on  earth?  Do  you 
believe  that  he  would  treat  them  as  intruders, 
if  brought  only  into  the  outer  court  of  his  king- 
dom here,  when,  if  their  breath  should  cease,  he 
would  take  them,  in  a  moment,  to  his  kingdom 
above  ?  Are  the  bars  of  the  earthly  so  much 
more  rigid  and  insuperable  than  those  of  the 
heavenly  ?  Shall  those  be  debarred  from  the 
one,  who  are  not  from  the  other  ?  Let  me 
then  affectionately  ask  you  by  what  law  of  God, 
or  of  Christ,  or  of  his  kingdom  here,  or  by 
what  principle  in  the  social,  moral  or  parental 
relation,  should  they  be  shut  out  from  such 
rights  and  privileges  in  the  church  here,  as  their 
infant  capacities  and  relations  will  allow  ? 
6 


62  a  pastor's  gift 

No  one,  however,  can  demonstrate  that  the 
public  dedication  of  a  child  to  God,  may  not 
affect  its  well-being  hereafter,  even  though  it 
should  die  in  infancy.  Many  a  parent  has  bit- 
terly wept  for  his  neglect  to  offer  his  child  to 
God,  when  he  has  stood  by  its  dying  cradle. 
Though  my  own  hope  and  faith  incline  to  the 
opinion  that  infant  children  are  saved  in  death ; 
and  yet  I  could  not  let  a  child  of  mine  go  into 
eternity  unbaptized.  Call  it  prejudice,  if  you 
please.  Smile  at  my  superstition  if  you  will : 
and  yet  the  feeling  is  among  the  choicest  of  my 
religious  sentiments.  It  is  there,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  that  God  put  it  there. 

But  it  is  principally  for  your  own  good,  and 
the  benefit  accruing  to  your  children  in  after 
life,  that  I  now  press  this  subject  upon  your 
consideration.  You  acknowledge  the  power 
of  pledges:  of  social,  civil  and  moral  pledges. 
You  acknowledge  the  virtue  even  of  the  tem- 
perance pledge.  There  is  a  place  in  our  make, 
in  our  moral  nature  and  constitution,  then,  for 
the  principle  of  pledges.  And  God  has  provid- 
ed to  fill  this  essential  place  in  our  moral 
nature.  And  the  parental  relation  affords  an 
occasion  for  vows  and  pledges  which  meet  our 
moral  necessities.  And  no  vows  nor  pledges 
are  so  effectual   upon  our    feelings  as   religious 


to  nis  PEOPLE.  63 

ones.     And  where  is  the  christian  who  is  strong 
enough  in  himself  not  to  need  their  help  ? 

By  and  by  you  must  appear  before  God  with 
the  children  he  has  given  you.  And  if  they 
must  be  torn  from  your  tender  embrace  at  last, 
and  banished  to  the  left  hand  of  the  judge, 
will  you  not  bitterly  remember  the  present  ?  and 
reproach  yourselves  cuttingly,  for  your  neglect 
of  duty  to  your  offspring  while  they  were  yours? 

Unbelieving  Parents.  You  are  stamping  your- 
selves, upon  your  offspring.  You  are  perpetuating 
your  principles  through  them.— Such  are  the  laws 
of  light  and  its  reflection,  that  the  exact  form  of 
the  countenance  is  thrown  upon  the  silver  sur- 
face. By  a  surer  law  of  moral  light,  every  princi- 
ple and  feature  of  the  moral  man  are  communica- 
ted to  imperishable  tablets.  Tender  hearts  are 
taking  deep  upon  themselves,  your  imperishable 
image.  How  important,  parents,  that  you 
should  be  what  you  would  wish  to  perpetuate  in 
the  characters  of  your  children.  In  sitting  for 
your  likeness,  you  should  attend  to  your  ap- 
pearance, and  avoid  whatever  would  mar  that 
likeness,  or  cause  a  bad  impression.  But  you 
are  sitting  for  an  imperishable  likeness.  How 
ought  you  to  take  care  to  be  what  you  would 
see  again  in  others  forms  forever  ?  Dear  friends, 
the  subject  under  discussion  has  a  tremendous 


64  a  pastor's  gift 

bearing  upon  you.  Think  not  because  you 
have  neglected  to  give  ycurselves  to  God,  that 
therefore  you  are  under  no  religious  obligations 
to  your  children.  Farthest  from  this  possible  ! 
You  have  not  taken  the  first  preparatory  step  in 
duty.  And  do  not  flatter  yourselves  that  because 
you  have  not  consecrated  yourselves  to  God, 
that  you  are  under  no  obligations  to  dedicate 
your  children  to  him.  If  you  should  neglect  to 
provide  daily  food  and  clothing  for  yourselves, 
would  such  neglect  change  your  obligations  to 
provide  for  your  children  ?  Not  in  the  least? 
But  yet  how  can  you  do  spiritually  for  others 
what  you  have  not  done  for  yourselves  1  How 
can  you  dedicate  your  offspringto  God,  when 
you  have  not  dedicated  yourselves  to  him  ?  You 
are  parents  of  immortal  beings,  being  trained 
under  you  for  another  world.  But  while  impen- 
itent, how  unfit  are  you  for  this  charge.  Your 
children  lookup  to  you  for  religious  instruction 
and  guidance.  But  how  can  you  guide  others 
while  you  are  spiritually  blind  yourselves?  How 
can  you  train  up  others  in  the  way  they  should 
go,  when  you  do  not  walk  in  that  way  yourselves? 
Parents  teach  principally  by  their  example. 
Actions  have  an  oratory  more  impressive  than 
words.  Parents  are  epistles  known  and  read  of 
their  children.  Oh,  for  your  children's  sake  then, 


TO    HIS    PEOPLE.  65 

if  you  care  nothing  for  yourselves,  for  your 
dear  children's  sake,  say,  as  one  anciently  said, 
"  as  for  me  and  my  house,  we  will  serve  the 
Lord."  Families  break  up  at  death.  The  riv- 
ers as  they  run  into  the  ocean,  cease  to  be 
rivers.  So  families,  when  they  fall  into  eterni- 
ty, cease  to  be  families.  Death  severs  the  social 
relations.  And  yet  the  point  remains.  And  the 
happiness  of  parents  for  both  worlds  is  to  be 
very  much  in  the  hands  of  their  children.  And 
the  happiness  of  children  through  all  their  ex- 
istence, is  very  much  in  the  hands  of  the 
parents,  while  they  are  young.  Suppose  the 
government  and  destiny  of  several  worlds  were 
committed  to  your  care,  would  you  "not  feel  the 
weight  of  your  responsibilities,  and  your  need  of 
help  from  heaven  to  bear  them.  But  any  one 
who  has  children,  has  the  care  and  government 
of  that  which  outweighs  worlds  in  worth.  Oh 
how  responsible  is  the  relation  of  parents  !  How 
much  grace  and  help  from  heaven  they  need  ! 
Soon  you  and  your  children  will  be  in  another 
world.  I  would  not  lift  the  veil  from  the  scenes 
of  eternity.  I  cannot.  But  I  forewarn  you 
that  by  your  conduct  here,  you  are  to  be  the 
chief  contributors  to  the  happiness  or  misery  of 
your  children  hereafter,  and  by  their  happiness 
or  their  misery   in  another   state,  they  will   be 


66  a  pastor's  gift 

large  contributors  to  your  blessedness  or  wo  in 
the  world  to  come.  Your  dear  offspring  will 
be  witnesses  in  your  case  at  the  bar  of  God. 
They  will  testify  to  angels  and  the  universe 
of  your  faithfulness  or  your  unfaithfulness  here. 


ARTICLES  OF  FAITH 

ADOPTED  BY  THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH  IN 

WINDHAM,  ME. 


Article  1.  You  believe,  that  there  is  one  God,  who 
is  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  self-exis- 
tent  and  omnipresent,  infinite  in  power,  wisdom,  jus- 
tice, goodness,  and  truth,  unchangeable  in  his  perfec- 
tions and  purposes,  the  Creator,  Preserver,  and  Sove- 
reign of  the  Universe. 

Deut.  6  :  4.  Eph.  4:6.  1  Cor.  8:  6.  1  Tim.  1 1  17.  Rev.  4:  8. 
Mat.  28 :  19.  2  Cor.  13  :  14.  Heb.  1  :  8.  John  1:1.1  Cor.  2  :  10.  1 
Cor.  12 :  3, 11.  Eph.  4  :  30.  1  Cor.  3 :  Ifi.  Ps.  147  :  Sl  Acts  15  :  18. 
1  John  4:  8.  Deut.  32:  4.  James  1:  17.  Eph.  1:  11.  Rev.  4:  11. 
Acts  17  :  28.     1  Tim.  6  :  15. 

Article  2.    That  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 

Testaments  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  are 

the  only  perfect  rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice. 

2  Tim.  3:  16.  2  Peter  1:21.  Heb.  1:1,2.  Ps.  19;  7.  Ps.  119: 
105.    2  Tim.  3  :  15.    1  John  5:  10.    lsa.  8  :  20. 

Article  3.  That  the  Moral  Law,  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures,  requiring  man  to  love  God  supremely,  and 
his  neighbor  as  himself,  and  threatening  eternal  death 
to  the  transgressor,  is  holy,  just,  and  good,  and  of  per- 
petual obligation. 

Mat.  22 :  37, 4 1.  Tit.  2  :  1 1, 12.  1  John,  3  :  4.  Rom.  6:  23.  Gal- 
3:10.    James  2.  10.    Rom.  7  :  12'. 

Article  4,    That  God  created  man  perfectly  holy  ; 

and  that  man  became  sinful  by   eating  the  forbidden 

fruit,  in  consequence  of  which  all  his  posterity  are  by 

nature  destitue  of  holiness  and  under  the  dominion  of 


Gen.  1  :  27.    Ecclna.  7  :  27.    Rom.  5  :  12.    Rom.  5  :  18, 19.    Rom.  3, 
10.    Rom.  3,  23     2  Cor.  5.  14.    Eph.  2,3. 


67  ARTICLES    OP    FAITH. 

Article  5.  That  in  the  fulfillment  of  the  merciful 
designs  of  God,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  being  God  and 
man,  mysteriously  united  in  one  person,  by  his  suffer- 
ings and  death  made  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  and  thus  prepared  the  way  for  the  offer 
of  eternal  life  to  all  men  and  for  the  salvation  of  every 
penitent  believer. 

John  1, 1—14.  Isa.  53, 5-6.  1  John  1,  7.  1  Peter  1.  18—20.  Rom. 
5,8.  J oli n  «3,  16.  Acts  4,  12.  Acts  2,  38.  John  3, 36.  Rom.  10,  4. 
.Mark  16, 15,  16. 

Article  9.  That  no  man  will  accept  the  proposals  of 
the  gospel,  unless  drawn  by  the  special  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  bestowed  according  to  the  eternal  pur- 
pose of  God;  and  that  all,  who  are  thus  renewed,  will 
be  pardoned  and  justified,  be  preserved  in  the  way  of 
holiness,  and  admitted  to  heaven. 

John  5,  40.  John  6,  44— 65.  1  Cor.  12,  3.  John  3, 3.  John  3,  6. 
Titus  3,5,  6.  IPet.l.'S.  2Thess.2,13.  Ephs.  1,  3— 6.  Rom.  8, 
30.    Uoi.n3,2. 

Article  7.  That  none  should  be  received  to  the 
visible  Church  of  Christ,  but  those  who  exhibit  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  repentance  and  faith;  that  the  ordi- 
nances, appointed  for  perpetual  use  in  the  Church,  are 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  that  it  is  the 
duty  and  the  privilege  of  Church  Members,  who  are 
heads  of  families,  to  bring  all  who  are  under  their  pa- 
rental eare,  to  the  ordinance  of  Baptism,  and  to  train 
them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

Co].  ],8.  Mat.  18,7.  Mark  16,  16.  Mat.  28, 19.  1  Cor.  11,  23,  24. 
1  Cor.  11, 28.    Acts  16, 15.    Acts  16,  33.    1  Cor.  1, 1G.    Eph.  6, 4. 

Article  8.  That  at  the  end  of  time  there  will  be 
a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  unjust,  and  a  gen- 
eral judgment,  when  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  will  pass 
a  decisive  sentence  upon  all  men  according  to  their 
characters ;  and  that  the  happiness  of  the  righteous 
and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  will  be  endless. 

Acts  17, 31.    John  5.  22.    Rev.  20, 12,  13.     Rev.  2, 10.    Rom.  2,  9. 


8  MAINE  SABMTI 


Is  kept  at  the  Bookstore   of 

£)vU,  €oxh  &  JDurm, 

61  Exchange  Street. 

The  publications  of  the  American  Sunday  School 
Union,  the  New  England  Sabbath  School  Union,  the 
Massachusetts  Sabbath  School  Society,  and  various 
other  societies  and  individuals  who  publish  Sabbath 
School  books,  are  kept  constantly  on  hand  at  this  De- 
pository, in  quantities  to  supply  the  Sabbath  Schools 
in  this  state,  and  sold  at  the  societies'  prices. 

Of  the  books  for  Sabbath  School  Libraries,  there  are 
nearly  two  thousand  different  kinds,  at  from  one  cent 
to  fifty  cents  each.  Besides  these,  there  are  several 
hundred  different  kinds  of  very  small  ones,  done  up  in 
packages  of  12  and  24  books  in  a  package,  at  from  4 
cents  to  20  cents  a  package  ;  these  are  designed  for 
very  young  scholars,  and  come  Under  the  general  title 
of  "  Infant  series." 


;£     S.  S.  QUESTION  BOOKS  AND  PAPERS, 

Of  Question  Books  &  other  Lesson  Books 

for  the  classes,  there  are  now  over  100  different  kinds. 
Among  which  are  the 

Union  questions,        -         -    12  different  vols. 
Newcomb's  questions,    -       15       "  " 

Barnes's  questions,    -  5      " 

Banvard's  questions,      -         -  8      " 

Banvard's  Infant  series,    -  4    nos. 

Biblical  catechism,         -         -  6       " 

Hague's  guide,  2    vols. 

New  England  S.  S.  question  book,      3       " 
Lincoln's  questions,       -         -  two  kinds. 

Mrs.  Hopkins'  questions  on  Proverbs  ;  do.  on  Acts. 
Assemblies'  Shorter  Catechism,  with  scripture  proofs, 
and  many  other  kinds,  which  can  be  seen  and  exam- 
ined at  this  Depository. 
From  this  Depository  are  also  issued  the  following 

Valuable  Sabbath   School  Papers; 

THE  YOUTH'S  COMPANION, 
SUNDAY  SCHOOL  JOURNAL, 
DAY  SPRING, 
WELL  SPRING, 
YOUTH'S  PENNY  GAZETTE, 
CONGREGATIONAL  VISITOR, 
AMERICAN  MESSENGER, 
YOUTHS  FRIEND. 


TRACTS    AND    PERIODICALS. 


THE  TRACT  IEP0SIT0RY 

is  also  kept  at  this  store,  where  all  the  publications  of 
the  American  Tract  Society,  their  bound  volumes,  as 
well  as  their  tracts,  are  sold  at  the  same  prices  as  at 
the  society's  house  in  New  York,  or  by  their  traveling 
agents. 

We  are  Agents  for  all  the 

IIS®M§:.OT]ii§  Midi  IMteimiry 

PERIODICALS, 

and  furnish  them  at  the  subscription  prices,  delivered 
at  our  store  without  expense  of  postage. 

AMONG     THEM     ARE  

The  Christian  Family  Magazine  and  Parlor 


Annual, 

monthly, 

$1,00 

The  Christian  Parlor 

Magazine, 

tt 

1,00 

The  Mother's  Magazine, 

it 

1,00 

National  Preacher, 

u 

1,00 

Sailor's  Magazine, 

It 

1,50 

Home  Missionary, 

tt 

1,00 

Missionary  Herald, 

(C 

1,50 

Biblical  Repository, 

quarterly   3,00 

New  Englander, 

tt 

3,00 

Bibliotheca  Sacra, 

(C 

3,00 

THEOLOGICAL    BOOKS. 


Princeton  Review,  "  4,00 

American  Review,  "  5,00 

North  American,  5,00 

Foreign  Quarterly  Reviews,  8,00 

Parley's  Cabinet  Library. 

Shilling  Library,  a  series  of  useful  books,  designed  to 
take  the  place  of  the  trash  so  freely  circulated  in  the 
land  ;  the  former  at  25  cents  per  number,  or  the  two 
no's,  in  one  volume,  handsomely  bound  for  62£  cents, 
the  latter  at  I2J  cents  per  no. 

Musical  World,  a  collection  of  good  music,  at  less 
than  two  cents  per  page. 

HYDE,  LORD  &  DUREN, 

Keep  a  very  extensive  stock  of 

THI@t®iICAl  BOOKS, 

probably  the  greatest  assortment  of  valuable  religious 
books  that  can  be  found  in  any  one  store  in  New  Eng- 
land, which  they  will  sell  as  low  as  they  can  be  bought 
at  Boston  or  elsewhere. 

They  intend  to  make  their  store  the  most  complete 
depository  of  good,  evangelical,  religious  reading,  and 
to  be  promptly  furnished  with  every  thing  new  in  this 
department.  So  that  clergymen,  theological  students, 
theological  seminaries,  families  and  individuals  may 
here  always  find  what  they  want  in  our  line 


